Trading in MRT

[chikubang]

The main reason to stop transactions over the gates is because mrt stations are meant to for transportation and not for dealing business. So i wonder, because how you deem behaviours to be acts of transactions can be rather subjective.

For eg. I can pass money to my mom over the gates because she helped me buy things.

so is that illegal?

To warn is ok. To fine is alittle far-fetched.

 

[estel]

To warn is ok. To fine is alittle far-fetched.

I think fine is there just in case they NEED to use it. It was the "maximum penalty" see.

Most likely, they'd warn.

 

[vince123123]

I was merely expanding on Pinoy's post. The main emphasis is to do your article exchange in the paid area, as I have emphasised in my post.

You don't have to say it "again" because I heard you the first time. You only say things again when people didn't hear you or post rebuttals which do not appear to have taken cognizance of your point.

as a matter of fact, there is another possibility.

A needs to travel from 1 to 4.
B needs to travel from 10 to 6.

Both travel to 5, exchange, and travel BACK to their respective stations
conforms to all existing regulations.

Again, vince, I don't want to "write to MRT" about this. I think they know of this too.

 

[vince123123]

Prosecutorial discretion and sentencing are different concepts.

If they warn, it has nothing to do with the maximum penalty. It just means they decided not to exericse the prosecutorial discretion (or for that matter, to report to someone with that discretion).

I think fine is there just in case they NEED to use it. It was the "maximum penalty" see.

Most likely, they'd warn.

 

[vince123123]

Based on Regulation 31, that is unfortunately, illegal.

EDIT: Forgot about the requirement that it must be for trade or business, so in this case, probably not.

The main reason to stop transactions over the gates is because mrt stations are meant to for transportation and not for dealing business. So i wonder, because how you deem behaviours to be acts of transactions can be rather subjective.

For eg. I can pass money to my mom over the gates because she helped me buy things.

so is that illegal?

To warn is ok. To fine is alittle far-fetched.

 

[estel]

Prosecutorial discretion and sentencing are different concepts.

If they warn, it has nothing to do with the maximum penalty. It just means they decided not to exericse the prosecutorial discretion (or for that matter, to report to someone with that discretion).

I see. Thanks for the valuable information.

 

[vince123123]

You're welcome - always a pleasure to share information

I see. Thanks for the information.

 

[vince123123]

Great information, at least we finally see someone else who can contribute some sensible and substantive information on legal information

I would add my own personal view on your personal view that the choice to argue with the SMRT is really up to each individual's own.

IF AG decides to prosecute and can't show the "trade or business" requirement, then there will be no liability. Of course, maybe they will then come up with some other law in some corner of some Act to catch that situation

DISCLAIMER :
The views expressed here are my personal opinions and should not be construed as specific legal advice. It is not meant as a suggestion that you should ‘argue until the cow comes home’ if you were told by SMRT staff that transfer of any article or goods between the paid area and unpaid area is disallowed. The more sensible action is to heed their advice and refrain from impugning the integrity of the judicial system with unnecessary legal argument.

Please consult a qualified lawyer for all case specific consultations.

 

[blazer_workz]

Wah! I tot i'm in some law forums! :bigeyes:

OBU, appreciate what you have shared here!

 

[vince123123]

That relates to jurisdiction only, not really a catch all to catch all offences. Not sur ewhat you mean by "catch-all".

There is already a catch-all sub-section in the Rapid Transit Systems Act, Cap 263A below :

Jurisdiction of courts :
42. Notwithstanding the provisions of any written law to the contrary, a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court shall have jurisdiction to try any offence under this Act and award the full punishment for such offence.

 

[redmonsoon]

I think fine is there just in case they NEED to use it..
Most likely, they'd warn.

Hope so.
Otherwise it'll become a case of actually getting evidence?:think::bsmilie:

Case Study:
So if I pass an item over, the other party hands me $$.
And when stopped, I deny its for the items but rather its payment for last nite's dinner..

Then how?
Call detective, check if we were at restaurant, get witnesses...
Watch CCTV, see if one party said "Can cheaper or not?" or "Give discount leh, I student"..

 

[vince123123]

Yup it will be up to the prosecution to prove their case.

Evidence can come in the form of CCTV as you say, or in blind spots, possibly testimony from the SMRT person who saw you (which will be cross-examinable).

Hope so.
Otherwise it'll become a case of actually getting evidence?:think::bsmilie:

Case Study:
So if I pass an item over, the other party hands me $$.
And when stopped, I deny its for the items but rather its payment for last nite's dinner..

Then how?
Call detective, check if we were at restaurant, get witnesses...
Watch CCTV, see if one party said "Can cheaper or not?" or "Give discount leh, I student"..

 

[redmonsoon]

So the next time I buy something will say loud loud..

Me: "Oh! thanks for RETURNING MYyy lens to me!.."

Me:" You better have not damaged MYyy lens!.."
Proceed to check item...

Me: "BTW, heres your $$ for last nite's dinner.."

Like this can?...:bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

Hahaha sounds feasible KEKEK

The only catch would be why the dinner costs hundreds/thousands of dollars KEKEK

So the next time I buy something will say loud loud..

Me: "Oh! thanks for RETURNING MYyy lens to me!.."

Me:" You better have not damaged MYyy lens!.."
Proceed to check item...

Me: "BTW, heres your $$ for last nite's dinner.."

Like this can?...:bsmilie:

 

[redmonsoon]

Hahaha sounds feasible KEKEK

The only catch would be why the dinner costs hundreds/thousands of dollars KEKEK

You mean Ah Hock, who just RETURNED me Myy lens, could possibly be trying to cheat my $$!! I could've swear those prawns ain't so nice even though he said they were from antarctica...:sweat:

Ok OT OT..

 

[vince123123]

Hehehe now that's a good funny one