French Student Fined S$600 Over Viral Juice Vending Machine Prank

Court Sentencing and the S$600 Fine at the State Courts

Appearing in the State Courts on July 30, 2026, Didier Gaspard Owen Maximilien pleaded guilty to one count of public nuisance, while a second charge of mischief was taken into consideration during sentencing. Judge Kelly Ho rejected alternatives such as probation or a community-based sentence, citing the nineteen-year-old student’s age and the nature of the offense. Prosecutors had sought the maximum penalty of 2,000 Singapore dollars, pointing out that the stunt was designed for social media exposure and could undermine public trust in automated kiosk hygiene. However, both the prosecution and defense ultimately agreed that a fine was suitable.

The defense noted that Maximilien faced logistical hurdles for community-based sentencing because his father works in France, leaving the family without a local guardian. Under Singapore law, public nuisance carries penalties of up to three months in prison, a fine of up to 2,000 Singapore dollars, or both. The court settled on the S$600 fine, which translates to roughly 406 euros, 465 U.S. dollars, or 348 British pounds, with the defendant’s parents committed to ensuring the penalty is paid directly.

The Goldhill Centre Incident and Viral Instagram Video

The incident unfolded on March 12, 2026, at Goldhill Centre on Thomson Road. Maximilien had just finished a boxing session in the affluent Singapore neighborhood when he stopped at an iJooz orange juice kiosk. He removed a straw from the automated dispenser, licked it, and placed it back inside while recording an Instagram story. The clip featured the caption city is not safe and quickly circulated across social media platforms after someone in his circle screen-recorded the post and forwarded it to a news outlet.

The video sparked widespread online disgust and prompted a police report from iJooz, the operator of the popular vending machines that sell freshly squeezed orange juice for two Singapore dollars per cup in shopping districts, train stations, and housing blocks. Company employees sanitized the kiosk and replaced all 500 straws inside the dispenser. The direct cost of the replacement straws totaled just five Singapore dollars, but the public backlash resulted in the student’s arrest in April.

Legal Arguments and the Question of Student Pass Status

During the proceedings, defense counsel Kalidass Murugaiyan emphasized that his client never intended for anyone else to use the contaminated item. the contaminated straw was not used by anyone, the lawyer told the court, adding that Maximilien subsequently retrieved the same straw for his own beverage before leaving the kiosk. Defense submissions highlighted that the offense sat at the lower end of seriousness because no member of the public suffered actual harm and the defendant entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

While the court concluded its criminal proceedings, the student’s future in Singapore remains unresolved. Deputy public prosecutor Maximilian Chew noted that the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will independently determine whether to revoke his student pass. I understand that ICA will make that decision having regard to all relevant considerations including circumstances of the case and the outcome of today's proceedings, the prosecutor stated in court.