Divya Jesudoss: First Case drafted during Singapore – Schooling using Game Theory & the Prisoner’s Dilemma Against Microsoft’s Monopoly
Published: 08/08/2026; Author: International Desk
“People often ask where Crimeophobia truly began. Most assume it began with a crime scene, courtroom or my study of criminology. The truth is that it began much earlier, during my Economics school days in Singapore, under Professor Divya Jesudoss ma’am, who guided me through my first case: applying Game Theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma to Microsoft’s global market monopoly. Through Economics, I unknowingly learnt the foundations of criminology and criminal psychology—questioning assumptions, analysing behaviour, evidence, incentives and consequences. Mrs. Neetu Arvind Uppal ma’am assisted by securing a witness from Microsoft Singapore HQ, bringing real-world insight to the case. . Looking back, I realise Crimeophobia was not built by one individual; it was quietly shaped by mentors who never knew the future they were helping create. Professor Divya Jesudoss ma’am will always remain one of those foundations.” ~ Criminologist Snehil Dhall
Singapore: This is the story of a time when criminology did not yet exist as a formal framework in Criminologist Snehil Dhall’s life. Instead, the study of criminal psychology began through the application of economic theories to understand human behaviour and decision-making. The purpose of this article is to acknowledge the mentors who, without ever realising it, silently helped build the foundation of what would eventually become Crimeophobia. Ironically, the first case ever drafted by Criminologist Snehil Dhall was not a criminal investigation but an academic study against Microsoft’s alleged global monopoly.
Many students believe that the activities they undertake during their school years have little relevance to their professional lives. Others eventually pursue careers entirely different from the subjects they originally studied. For Criminologist Snehil Dhall, however, the journey unfolded differently. His interest in solving crimes was never confined to isolated incidents or practical investigations. Even during his school years, he was deeply engaged with the theoretical frameworks that explained human decision-making, long before criminology became his chosen profession.
There have been numerous instances in which his field investigation skills have been applied in real-world situations. However, this was the first case he drafted entirely on his own, with invaluable guidance from his professors and mentors. The case examined Microsoft’s alleged monopoly through the lens of Game Theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The detailed research was conducted by Snehil himself, the evidence was refined under the guidance of his Economics teacher, Professor Divya Jesudoss, and access to a witness from Microsoft Singapore Head-office was facilitated by his legal guardian and mentor, Mrs. Neetu Arvind Uppal.
The first case was drafted inside a classroom at the Singapore School while he was pursuing the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma with majors in Economics and Business Management. In hindsight, that assignment marked the earliest foundation of Crimeophobia. Unknowingly, he developed concepts, methodologies and analytical frameworks that would later influence every investigation, negotiation and legal strategy he undertook. Even today, he presents every client, family member, friend and student with two strategic options, accompanied by a detailed explanation of the consequences associated with each decision. Long before criminology became his profession, economics was his first intellectual passion.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is one of the most influential concepts in Game Theory, illustrating the paradox that two rational individuals, acting in their own self-interest, may produce an outcome worse for both than if they had cooperated. In the classic thought experiment, two suspects are arrested and interrogated separately, without communication or coordination. Each can cooperate by remaining silent or defect by confessing and implicating the other. If both remain silent, each receives one year in prison; if both confess, each receives three years. If one confesses while the other remains silent, the confessor is released while the silent prisoner receives five years. Confession therefore becomes the dominant individual strategy: regardless of the other person’s decision, it offers the apparently better personal outcome. Yet when both act rationally in their own interest, both receive three years instead of the one-year sentence they could have achieved through mutual cooperation. This paradox has become foundational across economics, criminology, law, behavioural science, negotiation and strategic decision-making.
Long before Crimeophobia existed, Snehil Dhall encountered this principle through economic and not Criminology. During his schooling in Singapore, he applied Game Theory to his Economics dissertation examining Microsoft’s alleged monopoly. According to Snehil, the dissertation analysed Microsoft’s market dominance through strategic interaction, examining how incentives, competition and behavioural responses could influence the emergence and reinforcement of dominant market positions. It was not intended to make a legal determination of competition-law or antitrust liability, but to use Game Theory as an academic framework for understanding a major corporate entity and complex market behaviour. In retrospect, what appeared to be a school assignment became an early prototype of the methodology that would later define his criminology practice and the beginning of alternative legal framework.
Snehil was drawn not merely to economics, but to the question of how individuals make decisions while anticipating the actions of others. The Prisoner’s Dilemma consequently became, for him, an early study of human behaviour. Although commonly associated with economics, its concepts of cooperation, betrayal, trust, incentives, deception, calculated silence and strategic timing offered a behavioural framework applicable far beyond markets. Years later, entering criminology, Snehil recognised that the same decision-making architecture operated within organised crime, financial fraud, corporate conspiracies, extortion, property disputes and violent offences, where participants continually calculate risk, reward, cooperation, betrayal and consequences.
He credits his Economics teacher, Professor Divya Jesudoss, as a significant contributor to the dissertation’s analytical quality. According to Snehil, her guidance taught him disciplined research methodology: questioning assumptions, scrutinising evidence, defending interpretations and ensuring that conclusions could withstand logical examination. He frequently acknowledges that this research discipline became one of the foundations upon which he later built and commercialised his criminology practice.
His legal guardian, Mrs. Neetu Arvind Uppal, also played an important practical role. According to Snehil, she facilitated access to a crucial witness by enabling a senior member of Microsoft’s Singapore management to interact with him and provide practical corporate perspectives relevant to the research. That interaction transformed the dissertation from a conventional school project into a more substantial analytical exercise combining theoretical literature with practical insight. The academic supervision of Professor Jesudoss and the practical access facilitated by Mrs. Uppal therefore gave the work an unusual depth for a school dissertation.
Every case handled by Crimeophobia and Criminologist Snehil Dhall, he says, begins with this strategic understanding of behaviour which is now also referred as Criminal Psychology. Whether advising a client or confronting an individual he believes is responsible for wrongdoing, he generally presents two strategic options and explains the legal, financial, psychological and long-term consequences of each. His philosophy is that people should understand probable consequences before making consequential decisions—a principle he traces directly to the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Decades later, remembering Singapore Schooling days with Professor Jesudoss again became more than a nostalgic reunion. For Snehil, it represented a return to the intellectual beginning of a journey from economics to criminology. He describes her affectionately as among the most sarcastic, humorous and diplomatically logical people he has known, even joking that anyone frustrated by his own sarcastic communication should first seek training from her. Beneath the humour is his acknowledgement of the mentor who helped cultivate the research discipline that continues to shape his work.
Before there were investigations, there was inquiry. Before there were crime scenes, there was Game Theory. Before there was Crimeophobia, there was a Singapore classroom where a young student unknowingly drafted what he now regards as the first case file of his life: a dissertation demonstrating that understanding human decisions could ultimately become a foundation for understanding crime itself.