Property En Bloc Cheating | Singapore Debt Collection
Property En Bloc Investment

Property En Bloc Cheating

What is cheating?
Within the remits of the Penal Code, cheating is as follows:
S 415 – “Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.” The explanations provided expressly indicate that “a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.”

The following case is a discussion about how civilians may experience cheating, but may not be availed to the resources of criminal law.

Ms ‘F’, alongside other investors, were invited to invest in a business purportedly owned by Ms ‘R’. The business was housed on a private property that Ms ‘R’ claimed to own and guaranteed the returns to the investors as the property was soon to be en-bloc. Shortly after the transactions had officially commenced, there were prolonged delays with obtaining returns from Ms ‘R’ and unfulfilled returns that led the clients to engage JMSROGERS™ to investigate and verify. It was through the investigative efforts of JMSROGERS™ team that certain crucial details were uncovered; namely, that the property was in fact, not owned by Ms ‘R’. It had been revealed that she was renting the location for her business. It was also uncovered that the cheques Ms ‘R’ had been issuing were in fact void as the accounts from which the funds were allegedly drawn had already been closed.

Ms ‘F’, on JMSROGERS™ advice, quickly filed a police report, conveying that she had been cheated into parting with investments without factual disclosure of information pertaining to the property. The officers reverted that on consultation with the Commercial Affairs Division, they concluded that the offence of “Cheating” had not been substantiated without any further explanations.

They recommended that she commence legal proceedings against Ms ‘R’ to recoup her losses. In order to ascertain clarification, a letter was penned to AGC, PMO and MHA respectively. While the circumstances may seem relatively straightforward, the executive and legal procedures that underpin such situations may turn out not in favour of the victim for a great many reasons.

It is therefore incumbent on every individual entering open market transactions to thoroughly investigate the nature of the exchange and ensure the legitimacy of their transactions. JMS ROGERS™ offers quality recovery and private dispute resolution services, to assist with such conundrums.
We understand the resentment and strife that our clients experience when such situations occur and do offer lawful services to alternatively address such situations.

Posted on behalf Pisteuo pte ltd.
Propert En Bloc Cheating - JMS Rogers

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email