Singapore court sentences repeat seller of fake Sanrio goods to eight months’ jail
At a glance
- A Singapore District Court sentenced Gem Story Biz Pte Ltd and its director over counterfeit Sanrio goods sold in three shops; its reasons were published on 22 October.
- The company was fined S$13,000 and director Tan Bee Khim was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment; both have appealed and the sentences are stayed.
- The case began with Sanrio’s test purchases and search warrants executed by police in July 2023; 2,034 items worth S$6,604 were involved.
A Singapore District Court has published its reasons for sentencing a retailer and its director over counterfeit Sanrio goods sold in three shops. Gem Story Biz Pte Ltd was fined S$13,000, and its director and majority shareholder, Tan Bee Khim, was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. Both have appealed, and the sentences are stayed pending the appeal. [1]
The company and Ms Tan each pleaded guilty on 15 June 2026 to 14 charges under section 49 of the Trade Marks Act: six of selling goods bearing falsely applied Sanrio marks and eight of possessing such goods for trade. Ms Tan also consented to 61 further charges being taken into consideration. The grounds of decision, by District Judge Kelly Ho, are dated 1 October and were published on 22 October. [1]
The case began with Sanrio. Its investigators made test purchases at the shops in Bukit Panjang Plaza, Bugis Junction and 18 Tai Seng on 22 April 2023. On Sanrio’s application, the court issued search warrants, which the Singapore Police Force’s Intellectual Property Rights Branch executed on 21 July 2023. Further purchases followed in August 2023 and January 2024. In total, 2,034 items were involved, worth S$6,604. [1]
The judge said deterrence is the dominant sentencing consideration in trade mark cases. The company’s fine was set at twice the value of the infringing items. For Ms Tan, the court applied the Goik sentencing framework and noted that she had been convicted in 2013 on 28 similar charges and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment in total. It found that eight months was “neither crushing nor out of keeping” with her record. The offence carries a fine of up to S$10,000 per infringing item, up to five years’ imprisonment, or both. [1]
The goods were low in value, so the custodial sentence turned on the repeat offending and on conduct that ran for at least nine months. For brand owners, the case shows a test-purchase and search-warrant route started by the rights holder ending in a custodial sentence. The appeal will decide whether the sentences stand.
Sources
- Singapore State Courts (eLitigation). Tan Bee Khim (Chen Meiqin) v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2026] SGMC 115. Published 2026-10-22 10:26 Singapore time. English. Byline: District Judge Kelly Ho. Accessed 24 October 2026.
Was this useful?
Your response is private.