A former bubble tea shop owner was cleared of all charges of molesting two of his teenage employees in 2017.

Tan Kah Heng, 55, walked free after he was acquitted by District Judge Christopher Goh on Feb. 24, 2021, of all eight charges of outrage of modesty, following the closing of his court hearing.

One charge of molest was withdrawn earlier during the trial.

Both the names of the two female employees, then teenagers aged 16 and 17, as well as the name of the bubble tea shop, cannot be revealed due to gag orders to protect the identity of the girls.

Tan stood accused for more than three years of molesting the two teenage girls.

Allegations

Molest allegedly occurred sometime between October to November 2017

In court documents seen by Mothership, all incidents allegedly happened at work at Tan's bubble tea shop located at an MRT station.

Both victims had begun work towards the end of October 2017.

Victim 1 (then-16 years old) was hired first, before later recommending Victim 2 (then-17 years old) to the job.

Both worked scheduled shifts, with Victim 1 usually taking the afternoon shift, and Victim 2 taking the morning shift.

Tan, as the boss, came and went from the shop as he pleased.

Victim 1: Grabbed her butt and called her "Baby"

Tan allegedly molested Victim 1 three times while at the store.

The first time, Tan squeezed her buttocks while she was making drinks at the bar area. She did not confront Tan about what happened.

The second and third time was said to have happened on a separate occasion, with Tan smacking her butt, then reportedly hugging her from the back even when she said no.

The third incident happened after Tan saw the victim stretching her back, and offered to help her backache "with a back-cracking technique".

The victim said that aside from the three incidents, he also called her "Baby" or "Dear" in text messages, although she had expressed discomfort to him at the terms of endearment.

Victim 2: "Swiped" her butt on five separate occasions

Tan allegedly "swiped" the butt of Victim 2 on five separate occasions.

Victim 2 described the swiping action as a brushing motion over her jeans with the back of his hand.

Although she suspected it was not an accident, she did not confront Tan about what happened.

She said she felt scared and did not "want to make it big".

Reported to police

Both victims lodged police reports and resigned from the store in November 2017.

According to documents, Victim 1 lodged a report on Nov. 15, 2017, while Victim 2 made her complaint on Nov. 19, 2017.

A full-time manager, who worked together with the girls at the store, later testified in court that while she had witnessed two incidents of inappropriate contact between Victim 1 and Tan, she had not for Victim 2.

Victim 2 had only "given her feedback" that the accused had grabbed her hand improperly while teaching her how to wipe the floor.

Defence: "Salary dispute" and unspecified dates

Tan's lawyer, Chia Boon Teck, argued that both victims, as well as the manager who testified, had actually colluded to frame Tan over the non-payment or inadequate payment of their salary.

This stemmed primarily from "evidence" in the form of WhatsApp messages sent to Tan, where the victims had allegedly called him to pay them back in late-November.

In cross-examining Victim 1, Chia also alleged discrepancies in her statements, for example, that while she had initially stated she was molested on Nov. 12, there was documentary evidence that she did not go to work that day.

Chia submitted that Victim 2 had "flip-flopped" on the dates she went to work, and could have manipulated them to be consistent with the period of alleged molest.

He also suggested that the store manager, who had corroborated the victims' stories, had her own salary dispute with Tan, and submitted it was why she ended up colluding with the two girls in filing a police report.

Difficult to convict based on victims' testimonies

According to Today, District Judge Goh said in his acquittal that the evidence suggested that the victims might have been more concerned about not getting their salary rather than the molestation.

In cases like this, where it's he said she said, the prosecution's case would rest on the victims' testimonies to be “unusually convincing”.

This threshold, is that the witness’s testimony has to be so convincing that it's undoubtedly clear the accused is to be convicted.

However, he cited the victims' actions, where they did not immediately take action nor tell anyone about the incidents, was of doubt.

Regarding Victim 1, the judge said:

"She did not inform her parents of anything until at least two weeks later (after the police report was made). Even then, the evidence suggests that she was more concerned about the non-payment of her salary, rather than the acts of molest."

The judge added that Victim 2's evidence seemed even more circumstantial, as she had been vague about the dates of the offences, and towards the end of the trial, the prosecution had withdrawn one count of molestation as the girl set about with a different story.

District Judge Goh said in court: “The onus is always on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and not for the accused to prove otherwise. Allegations of sexual misconduct are easy to make and, in most cases, difficult to disprove.”

The judge also said there was no evidence that Tan called the first victim "Baby" over texts.

Moreover, the judge said the victim continued to work long hours even after she was allegedly molested.

For outrage of modesty, Tan could have been jailed for up to two years, fined or both.

What happened at the trial

Top image via Nigel Chua