Cheated Of Property And $1.2m

Source : The Straits Times, August 14, 2009

Brothers' signatures were forged; court deletes rogue lawyer's name from title deed after 5-year battle

CHEATED of their property when their lawyer forged their signatures to seize ownership, three brothers had to come up with another $700,000 to prevent the bank from selling off the building.

Rogue lawyer Sivakolunthu forged documents to take possession of the Sim brothers' property (seen here) and mortgaged it for $700,000. -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN

Yesterday, their five-year-long plight finally ended when the High Court ordered the rogue lawyer's name to be removed from the property title deed and replaced by their names instead.

The brothers, Mr Sim Chiang Lee, Mr Sim Sien Tong and Mr Sim Ah Ban, now in their 50s and 60s, were partners and shareholders in a family business that included provisions, hardware and realty.

Their ordeal began in March 2004 when then lawyer Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, now 51, forged their signatures and transferred ownership of a factory they had purchased to her name.

Among other things, Sivakolunthu drafted documents that made out that the three brothers had sold the premises in Chai Chee to her.

To cover her tracks, she included one of the brothers, Mr Sim Chiang Lee, as co-owner with her.

The forged documents stated that Sivakolunthu owned 75 per cent of the property - worth $1.4 million - while the remaining 25 per cent was supposedly in Mr Sim Chiang Lee's name.

The lawyer then mortgaged the property to a bank for a $700,000 loan by forging Mr Sim Chiang Lee's signature, and skipped town in May that year.

She is still on the run.

Mr Sim Ah Ban (left) and his brothers lost a total of $1.2 million to their rogue lawyer. They, however, managed to get $226,000 in rent for the leased-out period. -- ST FILE PHOTO

In August 2005, after her fraudulent work was uncovered, the bank acted on the mortgage default and the brothers had no option but to pay up or see the bank sell off the premises.

The bank took its case to the High Court, which confirmed it had a valid mortgage, which could be enforced.

The brothers contested the move all the way to the Court of Appeal where they lost and have yet to settle the legal costs of the move.

One small compensation was the brothers were entitled to the rent from the building, which had been leased from the time Sivakolunthu was found out. They received $226,000 in January this year.

Altogether Sivakolunthu swiped $2.4 million from more than a dozen victims in early 2004, by mortgaging four properties, but the Sim brothers suffered the most.

They lost $1.2 million as she also swiped $500,000 which they paid into the clients' account of the law firm she worked in.

The Sim brothers, who were represented by lawyer Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership, were all shareholders and partners in several businesses they ran, including Sin Aik Provision Store, Sin Aik Realty and Sin Aik Hardware.

Contacted last night, Mr Sim Ah Ban expressed disappointment that Sivakolunthu remains missing and said he was in no mood to talk.

'A loss is a loss,' he added.

Their case was among those cited by the Law Ministry recently when it proposed new rules for the handling of money in property deals.

Under the proposals, now the subject of a public feedback exercise, lawyers will no longer be allowed to handle conveyancing monies and deposits will be placed with approved institutions.

In the past five years, five rogue lawyers have absconded with almost $20 million of their clients' money; four are yet to be caught.

A fifth, Victor Tan, who handed himself to police in late 2007, is currently behind bars serving a 54-month sentence after being convicted of misappropriating $32,000 from a client.

Agents' 'Greed' Prompts Warnings

Source : TODAY, Jul 24, 2009

'Fee for secure booking' practice reportedly rampant at Meadows@Peirce

THE sizzling-hot property market and the rush by buyers to secure choice units have led some property agents to turn greedy.

Some agents are offering potential buyers their services to secure a booking for their choice units if they pay them a commission. This has prompted at least two marketing agencies to warn their agents against this practice.

This scheme is reportedly rampant at the freehold Meadows@Peirce development near Teachers' Estate, which is supposed to be open for preview only from today.

Some marketing agents, however, told Today that it is the potential buyers that are offering commissions to agents to secure for them their choice units.

The fee earned by these agents is said to be about 1 per cent of the property value. With unit prices at Meadows@Peirce ranging from $900,000 to more than $1 million, these agents could potentially earn between $9,000 and more than $10,000 for each unit that they can secure for an eager buyer.

In an email to its 3,000 associates on Wednesday, ERA Realty Network, one of the marketing agents for the project, warned: "Please do NOT collect commission from buyers for Meadows@Peirce or any other projects. Anyone caught doing so will be terminated from ERA and no commission will be paid to the associates."

ERA's associate director Eugene Lim said the email was a "preventive measure".

"We want to stop it before anyone receives a commission. It is not right," he added.

Of late, ERA has been cracking the whip on its agents in an industry where complaints of rogue or ignorant agents are rife. Last week, ERA warned its agents against submitting transactions under the names of senior colleagues to garner a higher share of the commissions.

And in February, a couple successfully sued ERA after its agents profited from "flipping" an apartment they were engaged to sell. The couple had sold their apartment through ERA agent Jeremy Ang, but it turned out that the buyer, Ms Natassha Sadiq, was the wife of his boss Mike Parikh, a senior director at ERA. She immediately resold the unit for a $257,000 gain.

Another marketing agent for Meadows@Peirce also issued an email warning a few days ago. Knight Frank reminded its 700 agents that they cannot receive or ask for commission from buyers, cannot collect an entrance fee into the showflat and cannot ask for blank cheques, which can subsequently cause the buyer to feel pressured to make a purchase.

The company's executive director Foo Suan Peng said: "This is something we don't condone because it will give rise to conflict of interest."

Agents Today spoke to said the "fee for secured booking" practice happens with other projects, too. One said there was "nothing wrong" for buyers to pay agents, as both are willing parties.

Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies chief executive Tan Tee Khoon disagrees. He told Today: "The agent receives a commission from buyers when they are already hired by the developer to provide the services. That is unethical."

Lawyer Struck Off Rolls

Source : The Straits Times, July 8, 2009

LAWYER David Tan Hock Boon, who was part of a group which swindled banks and the CPF Board by declaring inflated purchase prices, was struck off the rolls on Wednesday for gross professional misconduct.

Tan, 40, who was represented by lawyer Wong Siew Hoong at the Supreme Court hearing, was jailed five years last November for his part in the property scam. -- PHOTO: CRO

The Court of Three Judges, presided by Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, took less than 10 minutes to make the ruling in the suit brought by the Law Society.

Tan, 40, who was represented by lawyer Wong Siew Hoong at the Supreme Court hearing, was jailed five years last November for his part in the property scam.

He had then pleaded guilty to being part of an elaborate housing scam that cheated banks out of almost $700,000 in just over a year. Tan was one of five people connected to the plot which also involved rogue fugitive-lawyer David Rasif.

Tan had conceived the scam in 2003 to swindle banks and the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board by falsely declaring the purchase prices of properties.

His partners included property agent Goh Chong Liang and Rasif, who went missing in June 2006 with about $12 million of his clients' money.

Their plan saw Goh convince sellers and buyers of properties, mainly HDB flats, to declare inflated purchase prices. Armed with phoney documents such as CPF and employment records, they secured mortgages well above the value of the houses.

Three others involved in the scam, all non-lawyers have already been convicted and are behind bars for jail terms varying

between 12 and 65 months. Rasif remains on the run.

Tan, a father of two young children, stopped practising law in April 2006 on leaving Rasif's law firm and became a freelance business development manager.

Seller, Protect Yourself

Source : The Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009

A property agent should work in his client's best interest, so look out for anything that indicates otherwise.

1 Do your homework. Always get a valuation done on the property so you know if you are being cheated, said Mr C.M. Tan, 64, a retired bank manager who has worked on home loans.

2 Don't rush to appoint an agent. Meet a few and have detailed discussions with them before deciding on one, said Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive of Ivy Lee Realty.

3 Get a reputable agent from recommendations by friends.

4 If an agent is unwilling to advertise or co-broke your property, he is not exposing it to a maximum number of buyers, said experts.

5 Be wary of agents who make promises that sound too good to be true, said Ms Lee.

6 Do not leave your agent alone to do his work. Check up on him every two weeks or so to ensure that he is working hard to sell the property.

Other Dirty Tricks Some Agents Play

Source : The Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009

REFUSING TO CO-BROKE A PROPERTY

Co-broking is when more than one agent is involved in a property transaction - for example, if one agent introduces a buyer to another agent.

Because the commission from a co-brokered sale will have to be shared, some agents may refuse to meet or follow up on clients from other agents, to avoid splitting up their commission.

'This prevents a client's property from getting maximum exposure and is not in his best interests.

'To see if this is the case, clients can call their agent from an unknown number, pretend to be another agent, and see what they say,' said Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive officer of PropNex.

OVERPROMISING

'Some agents tell sellers they have a ready buyer for a very high price so that sellers will appoint them exclusively for a period of time,' said Ms Florence Choo, a real estate agent in her 50s.

'It may then turn out they did not actually have a ready buyer, and sellers may be forced to settle for a lower price as they cannot hold on to the property any longer.'

WORKING FOR MORE THAN ONE COMPANY

Agents should work for only one company, but some carry more than one name card - that is, they get to access more than one firm's client listings.

Because different agencies have different pay structures, such an agent may take a client under one agency's listing but close the deal under another agency which pays him better.

In such a situation, the client may not suffer a loss but the affected property firm gets the bum rap.

HIJACKING

Hijacking refers to an agent going behind another agent's back and stealing his clients by promising them a better deal and urging the clients to sign with him instead.

'It's really not nice and unethical of some agents to approach the seller on their own without notifying the original agent and stealing their client,' said Ms Susan Lim, 28, a property agent.

This is an example of the cut-throat competition among property agents.

Buyer Dragged Into Legal Tussle

Source : The Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009

ERA COURT CASE

CURRENT OWNER

All Mr Teo Su Kee wanted was to buy an apartment in the Clarke Quay area to invest in. He got more than he bargained for.

The engineer was dragged into a lawsuit between the previous owners of his two-bedroom apartment and property giant ERA Realty Network, over the latter's unethical behaviour.

Mr Teo, 48, who works in a multinational company, was called to appear in court to give his account of how he bought the flat.

'I am just an innocent buyer, I do not wish to be involved in this. I am very frustrated,' he said of having to take time off work to testify.

In July 2007, Mr Teo responded to an advertisement put up by ERA senior group division director Mike Parikh for the sale of a Riverside Piazza apartment.

He told The Sunday Times yesterday that he checked out the apartment with Mr Parikh and another man, whom he could not remember.

Mr Teo had been eyeing several apartments in River Place and Riverwalk that were going for more than $1,000 per sq ft (psf). When Mr Parikh offered him $998 psf for the flat, he accepted readily.

'It was a good deal as I had been surveying the prices of several properties in this area, and it was within the market value,' he said.

He learnt about seller Madam Wong Wai Fan's plight only when she visited him at his Toa Payoh home.

'I was surprised that she sold the apartment at a price that was way below the market rate,' he said.

There was another twist to the tale - Mr Teo found out from his wife that Madam Wong used to be her boss in a recruitment agency.

With the court case over, he wants to put the experience behind him.

He intends to sell the flat, but not immediately after his tenant, Mr Yuji Kubo, moves out. He also does not know the price he might get.

A resident at Riverside Piazza, who got a valuation from a bank, told The Sunday Times yesterday that the unit is likely to fetch only about $860,000 now.


THE TENANT

'All I know is that there has been a change of ownership, but I'm still paying the same rent, thus it is nothing related to me.'
MR YUJI KUBO, 57, tenant of the Riverside Piazza apartment, on the legal tussle between the unit's previous owners and ERA

They Thought They Had Good Deal

Source : The Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009

ERA COURT CASE

THE SELLERS

Her name was Natassha Sadiq.

They thought that sounded like she was from the Middle East, which meant she had to be rich and could afford to pay top dollar for their property.

And so the Yuens told their property agent: Okay, done deal.

But six months after Mr Yuen Chow Hin, 50, and his wife Wong Wai Fan, 48, sold their Riverside Piazza apartment to Madam Sadiq for $688,000, they discovered their error.

Madam Sadiq was actually the wife of the boss of their property agent.

And even before she had inked the deal to buy their unit, she had already resold it for $945,000.

That turn of events eventually led to a High Court case that ended last Thursday with the judge ordering property agency ERA Realty Network to pay the Yuens the $257,000 difference.

The saga began in June 2007.

Less than a fortnight after the Yuens engaged ERA property agent Jeremy Ang to sell their Riverside Piazza apartment near Clarke Quay, they were told that a buyer had been found.

Mr Ang said a regular client of his was offering $650,000 for the two-bedroom unit, which is just below 1,000 sq ft.

He added that OCBC Bank had valued the flat at between $650,000 and $700,000.

When the couple asked why they were not offered $700,000, Mr Ang said it was because they had recently renewed a two-year lease with their tenant Yuji Kubo, a 57-year-old Japanese trader. The couple charged him $2,000 in monthly rent.

Madam Wong told The Sunday Times yesterday that she took Mr Ang's word about the price, and did not check with other property agents if this was an industry norm.

'We had no reason to be suspicious. Our main thought was that agents will try to get the best price for us because it means they get a higher commission too,' she said.

Of the potential buyer, she noted: 'Jeremy said Madam Sadiq had bought many properties from him before and, judging by her last name, we got the impression that she was a rich Middle Eastern woman who regularly invests in property. We assumed we were getting a fair price.'

The housewife and her husband, a vice-president in an information technology firm, live with their two teenage sons in a terrace house in Serangoon Gardens.

The couple had bought the Riverside Piazza property in 1995 as an investment - the first time they had done so - paying about $609,000.

They decided to sell it to help pay for a new condominium unit in Serangoon, jointly owned by Mr Yuen and his sister, for Mr Yuen's aged parents to live in, said Madam Wong.

'I had told Jeremy to liaise directly with Mr Kubo about scheduling visits from potential buyers. Once, Mr Kubo complained to me that Jeremy had turned up at the flat without notifying him first, so I assumed Jeremy was doing his job,' she added.

She said they did not set any price and had asked Mr Ang to obtain a bank valuation.

The Yuens offered to sell the flat to Madam Sadiq for $688,000 on July 12. The latter said 'yes' on July 26. The couple did not meet Madam Sadiq in person.

'For most lay people, once the price is agreed upon, you hand it over to the lawyers, banks and the CPF Board. It's a process that you don't think about because it's too complex,' said Madam Wong.

In October 2007, the Yuens received a call from the Central Provident Fund Board about the discrepancy between the value of the flat - based on a valuation done by the new owner's bank - and the amount they had sold it for. That was when they sensed that something was amiss.

After getting their lawyers to check on the caveat lodged on the property, they tracked down the new owner, engineer Teo Su Kee, 48, at his Toa Payoh home.

They discovered that the transaction was handled by ERA agent Mike Parikh, who had put up newspaper advertisements - dated July 7, 9 and 14 - for their unit.

They also found that Mr Teo exercised his option to buy the flat from Madam Sadiq on July 25 - a day before she agreed to buy it from the Yuens.

Suspecting an internal arrangement among the parties, the Yuens checked with the Registry of Marriages and found out that Madam Sadiq was married to Mr Parikh.

It was a 'surprise', said Madam Wong. Mr Parikh had handled the sale of her brother-in-law's HDB flat in Pasir Ris in 2006.

Mr Parikh had also recommended Mr Ang, his subordinate, to handle the sale of her mother-in-law's HDB flat in Hougang in early 2007.

The smooth transactions led the Yuens to entrust Mr Ang to sell their property as well.

They wrote to ERA about their findings and refused to pay Mr Ang's commission of $7,361.

'We tried to arrange a discussion with their directors. We only wanted some accountability and answers,' said Madam Wong.

ERA wrote back to say that the two agents had done nothing wrong. In January last year, it made a claim against the couple at the Small Claims Tribunal for failing to pay the commission.

It was this that prompted the Yuens to file the lawsuit against the company.

Now that the judgment has been passed, Madam Wong said she feels some relief as the saga had caused her sleepless nights.

But with ERA saying last Thursday that it intends to appeal against the court's decision, she acknowledged that 'it's not over yet'.

'We don't know what the next step will be, but we will try to put it aside for now and get on with our Chinese New Year celebrations,' she said, adding that she has not made any plans for the money yet.

'I will be more careful the next time and definitely not be so trusting,' she added.

'Flipping' Property For A Quick Profit

Source : The Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009

ERA COURT CASE

Agents speak out on how common practice is, and conditions for an ethical transaction

A couple flipped when they found out that the flat they sold through a property agent had been 'flipped' by his boss' wife.

She quickly resold it - for a big profit.

The couple went to court, and last week a judge decided the agent was unethical, and ordered the firm he worked for to pay the sum of the profit to the couple.

What exactly is 'flipping of property' and - given that there are claims it is a common practice - when is it unethical?

Last week's case sheds some light.

'Flipping' takes place when someone - usually a speculator or even an agent - buys a property and resells it quickly to make a quick buck.

The court heard that Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, had sold their two-bedroom downtown flat for $688,000.

Their ERA Realty Network agent had told them this was the best price they could get. But they later checked and were shocked to learn that the buyer of their Riverside Piazza unit had immediately re-sold the flat for $945,000.

There was another shock: The first buyer was the wife of their property agent's boss.

The judge, deciding that the agent and his boss had not acted in the Yuens' interest, ordered ERA to return them $257,000.

The Sunday Times spoke to six real estate agencies. Most said the verdict was fair.

Said Mr Steven Tan, executive director of property firm OrangeTee: 'I think the verdict is correct. The moment we decide to let agents represent us, we have to be accountable for their mistakes.'

Agencies agreed that cases similar to the Yuens' are uncommon. But they were divided over how common flipping is among agents.

'I don't think it's widespread... As agents, we are trained and we have a code of conduct and ethics,' said Mr Ho Tian Lam, DTZ's chief executive officer.

Some agencies disallow flipping. At C&H Group, when agents join the company, they must sign an agreement with a clause that they must not act as an agent to buy a property under their own name or a nominee's name, like a wife or a friend.

Other industry players say flipping by property agents is not uncommon but is usually done in an 'ethical' manner.

Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive of PropNex, said flipping usually happens in a buoyant market.

'It is not wrong for an agent in a good, speculative market to take a risk by buying property from a client and then selling it,' he said.

But two conditions have to be fulfilled for it to be an ethical transaction, he said.

First, the agent must be transparent to the seller about who the buyer is.

Secondly, if the agent buys the flat, he must buy it at a reasonable price from the seller and he cannot make a 'secret profit' by underpaying the seller.

Said a property agent who wanted to be known only as Ms J. Tan: 'We are human and we buy property too. If we are interested in buying it ourselves, we have to make it known and not keep the owner in the dark.'

Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty, said that if the agent pays the clients the price of their choice, it is acceptable.

But she added this proviso: 'The agent should make the seller aware of the prices involved relative to the value of the property.'

How did the Yuens smell a rat?

The discrepancy was spotted when the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board asked why they sold the flat well below the valuation obtained by the new buyer.

Said a CPF Board spokesman of its procedure: 'When a member sells his property, he is required to refund the full CPF principal withdrawn and accrued interest.

'If he is unable to do so, because he has to pay the bank first or the sale price is not sufficient to cover the required refund, CPF Board will ask for a valuation report to check that the property is sold at market value.'

There are also agencies which, on their own initiative, take steps to protect clients in the event of a breach by their agents.

Mr Ismail said PropNex ensures that all staff are covered with professional indemnity insurance so clients can make a claim if the agent is professionally negligent.

HSR Property Group is also going to introduce professional indemnity insurance covering each agent for $400,000.

A spokesman said it plans to launch it in phases soon.

Also, there are agents who eschew any form of flipping, which they see as unethical.

Said Mr Jeffrey Sim, a property agent with DTZ: 'If there's an opportunity to flip properties, sellers would jump on it. It's only human to do that, but I wouldn't do it because I don't want to take this risk and tarnish my name.'


ABOUT THIS CASE

Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, sold their two-bedroom Riverside Piazza apartment for $688,000 in 2007.

They let it go at this sum as their ERA Realty Network agent Jeremy Ang said that this was the best price they could get.

Unknown to them, the buyer of the unit turned out to be Madam Natassha Sadiq, the wife of Mr Ang's boss, Mr Mike Parikh. She quickly resold it for $945,000.

The Yuens sued ERA for the 'secret profit' made in the second deal.

Last Thursday, a High Court judge found that the conduct of Mr Ang and Mr Parikh amounted to breach of duty and fraud, and ordered ERA to return $257,000 to the couple.

He also had a stern reminder for the industry of its ethical responsibilities.

'If I'm interested in buying a client's property, I will always ask his permission. I tell him I'm the one buying it and I will match the price that he is asking for. Often, clients are happy to get the price they ask for and they don't care who buys it. You have to be upfront about it, declare yourself and explain the prices involved.'
- MS IVY LEE, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty

'Last year, the market was very hot so there were a lot of speculators, and a lot of agents earned money from flipping. Such cases do happen, but I will not do this. I feel that there will be a conflict of interests. If I were the seller, I would trust the agent to sell the property at the best price. There is no way to safeguard against people who may cheat clients when they flip property.'
- MR MUHAMAD SALLEH, property agent from HSR Property Group

ERA Told To Return $257,000 To Couple

Source : The Straits Times, Feb 6, 2009

Judge slams unethical agents who 'flip' properties for profit

A HIGH Court judge yesterday criticised the unethical behaviour of two ERA Realty Network agents and ordered the return of $257,000 to a couple who used the agency to sell their apartment.

Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, had let go of their two-bedroom downtown flat at $688,000. They took their ERA agent's word that this was the best price they could get.

PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

What they did not know was that the buyer of their Riverside Piazza unit was the wife of their agent's boss, and that she re-sold it almost immediately for $945,000, making a hefty profit.

Yesterday, Justice Choo Han Teck ruled in favour of the Yuens, who had sued ERA for the 'secret profit' made in the second deal.

Justice Choo found that the conduct of agent Jeremy Ang and his boss, Mr Mike Parikh, senior group division director at ERA, amounted to breach of duty and fraud.

He also had a stern reminder for the industry of its ethical responsibilities, as it had emerged in court that such practices were common.

The judge concluded that it was Mr Parikh who wanted to buy the flat in order to make a quick profit during the property boom.

To distance himself from the deal, he used his wife, Madam Natassha Sadiq, as the buyer and Mr Ang as the seller's agent, the judge found.

Mr Ang was the link but Mr Parikh was the person behind the scheme, and his position made his subordinate's breach of contract even more reprehensible.

The misconduct was of such magnitude that the judge said he felt bound to make the reasons clear in his judgment so that no property agent could now claim ignorance.

When a property agent is engaged to sell or buy property, he has a responsibility to act in the interests of the person who appointed him - not his own, or his friends', or his relatives' or his boss', said the judge.

'This responsibility that the agent bears is the foundation of the ethical rules and contractual principles that prohibit an agent from acting in conflict of interests and reaping secret profits for himself or his friends.'

Madam Sadiq was a party to the plan carried out by her husband and Mr Ang.

'The result of the concerted efforts of Jeremy, Mike and Natassha resulted in the plaintiffs selling their flat for less than what they might have had they been properly and honestly advised,' said the judge.

Justice Choo rejected the testimony of ERA's top brass - president Jack Chua and senior vice-president Marcus Chu - that the two men had done nothing wrong.

The judge said it was clear why they thought so - Mr Chu admitted in court that he and others in the company, as well as agents in other companies, had done the same thing.

Justice Choo also rejected arguments by ERA that it was not liable for the actions of its agents, who are 'independent contractors'.

The option form had ERA's logo printed on it; the commission agreement was between Madam Wong and ERA; and the newspaper advertisements sought to persuade the public that they would have the backing of the company and its network by engaging an ERA agent.

It was also ERA - not Mr Ang - which took the couple to the Small Claims Tribunal when they refused to pay the commission on the sale.

Yesterday, a relieved Madam Wong said: 'Naturally, I'm very happy. I respect the decision of the court.'

In a statement, ERA president Jack Chua said: 'ERA intends to appeal the court decision that finds our company liable as we did not benefit from the transaction.'

Mr Jeff Foo, president of the Institute of Estate Agents, would only say the case could have been prevented if real estate agencies and their agents are licensed.

He said: 'In this way, the industry will be regulated and everybody can be held responsible and accountable for their actions.'

The institute has a code of conduct and ethics for members.

Mr Ang is not a member of IEA.

ERA To Appeal Court Order

Source: The Straits Times, Feb 6, 2009

Judge slams unethical agents who 'flip' properties for profit

ERA Realty Network, which was ordered by the High Court on Thursday to return $257,000 to a couple, has said it intends to appeal the court decision.

PHOTO: ZAO BAO, BRYAN VAN DER BEEK FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

In a statement to the media, its president Jack Chua said: 'ERA intends to appeal the court decision that finds our company liable as we did not benefit from the transaction.'

Two ERA agents were slammed by High Court Judge Choo Han Teck for their unethical behaviour in the transaction of a two-bedroom downtown flat.

Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, had let go of their two-bedroom downtown flat at $688,000. They took their ERA agent's word that this was the best price they could get.

ERA Senior agent Mike Parikh got his wife Madam Sadiq (above) to buy a flat sold by his subordinate Mr Ang (below). The flat was resold for a hefty profit within weeks. -- PHOTOS: ST FILE, LIANHE ZAOBAO

What they did not know was that the buyer of their Riverside Piazza unit was the wife of their agent's boss, and that she re-sold it almost immediately for $945,000, making a hefty profit.

On Thursday, Justice Choo ruled in favour of the Yuens, who had sued ERA for the 'secret profit' made in the second deal.

The judge found that the conduct of agent Jeremy Ang and his boss, Mr Mike Parikh, senior group division director at ERA, amounted to breach of duty and fraud. He also had a stern reminder for the industry of its ethical responsibilities, as it had emerged in court that such practices were common.

The judge concluded that it was Mr Parikh who wanted to buy the flat in order to make a quick profit during the property boom. To distance himself from the deal, he used his wife, Madam Natassha Sadiq, as the buyer and Mr Ang as the seller's agent, the judge found.

Mr Ang was the link but Mr Parikh was the person behind the scheme, and his position made his subordinate's breach of contract even more reprehensible. The misconduct was of such magnitude that the judge said he felt bound to make the reasons clear in his judgment so that no property agent could now claim ignorance.

'When a property agent is engaged to sell or buy property, he has a responsibility to act in the interests of the person who appointed him - not his own, or his friends', or his relatives' or his boss', said the judge. 'This responsibility that the agent bears is the foundation of the ethical rules and contractual principles that prohibit an agent from acting in conflict of interests and reaping secret profits for himself or his friends.'

WHO'S WHO:

The plaintiffs: Mr Yuen Chow Hin, 50, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, 48.

The agent: Mr Jeremy Ang, 40, who was hired by ERA senior director Mike Parikh after he was retrenched in 1999.

The boss and his wife: ERA senior group division director Mike Parikh, 44, and his wife, Madam Natassha Sadiq, 40.

WHAT HAPPENED

June 2007: The Yuens appoint Mr Ang to sell their Riverside Piazza apartment.
The agent says the market value is between $650,000 and $700,000, and says a 'regular client' is interested in buying the property. No valuation is done and Mr Ang omits to mention that the interested buyer is his boss' wife.

Mr Ang does not advertise the property for sale.

July 7 and July 9: Mr Parikh advertises the property for sale on behalf of his wife, Madam Sadiq, before she has an option to buy.

July 12: The Yuens give Madam Sadiq an option to buy for $688,000.

July 14: Mr Parikh places a third ad, setting the price at $945,106 and saying the property has en bloc potential. A buyer responds, and Mr Parikh handles the deal.

July 18: Madam Sadiq grants the buyer an option to buy at $945,000.

July 25: The new buyer exercises the option.

July 26: Madam Sadiq exercises her option from the Yuens.

October 2007: The couple discover the flat was resold after the CPF Board asks why they sold well below the valuation obtained by the new buyer.

Dec 19, 2007: The couple find out that Madam Sadiq is married to Mr Ang's team leader, Mr Mike Parikh.


WHAT THE JUDGE SAID: Justice Choo Han Teck said that Mr Parikh and Mr Ang were ethically wrong and in breach of contract by creating a conflict of interest between their client and themselves.

ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON DECEPTION

'Jeremy's duty to act honestly required him to disclose his boss' interest in the sale and purchase. The arrangements made and carried out by him in collaboration with Mike and his wife Natassha depended on deception.' - Justice Choo

MANY OWNERS, BUYERS AT RISK

'Mike has 200 agents working for him and we do not know how many agents the defendant has, nor how many housing agents there are in all. This kind of misconduct is never easy to discover because it is carried out in stealth and in breach of trust and far too many homeowners and potential purchasers are at risk. The defendant and its two agents have done a grave disservice to the honourable and honest members in their rank.' - Justice Choo

Couple Sue Agency After Buyer Flips Flat For Profit

Source : The Straits Times, Jan 22, 2009

WHEN a married couple sold their downtown apartment for $688,000 in 2007, they thought it was the best deal they were going to find.

But soon after they granted the buyer the right to purchase the property, the two-bedroom Keng Cheow Street apartment was re-sold for $945,000.

Mr Yuen and his wife Madam Wong allege that the real estate firm did not do its best to find buyers and that it made a 'secret profit' off the deal. -- PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

It was only later that Mr Yuen Chow Hin and Madam Wong Wai Fan found out about the second deal.

They also learnt that the woman who bought their flat - and flipped it for a healthy profit - was married to the boss of their real estate agent.

The couple cried foul, and are now suing ERA Realty Network in the High Court, seeking $257,000 - the difference between the two sale prices - and the return of about $7,300 in commission.

They allege the company did not try its best to find buyers and made a 'secret profit' off the deal.

ERA disputes that and says the couple have no basis to sue it since the agent was not an employee but an independent contractor.

Yesterday, the hearing entered its third day, with ERA senior vice-president Marcus Chu taking the stand.

He denied that the agency earned any secret profits and said that the real estate agent, Mr Jeremy Ang, did nothing wrong.

Mr Chu said ERA agents are required to disclose the identity of the buyer only if that person is the agent or a member of his immediate family.

This was echoed by Mr Ang, who also took the stand.

Mr Yuen, 50, and Madam Wong, 48, hired Mr Ang to sell their apartment at The Riverside Piazza in June 2007. He told them he would advertise the property.

Mr Ang helped sell his clients' flat in Riverside Piazza (above) to his boss' wife, who soon resold it for a profit. He contends that he did nothing wrong. -- PHOTOS: LIANHE ZAOBAO AND DESMOND LIM

In early July, an offer came for $650,000. After negotiations, the couple granted the buyer, Madam Natassha Sadiq, an option - dated July 12 - to buy the flat for $688,000.

Meanwhile, Madam Natassha's husband - Mr Ang's boss - placed advertisements in the papers to sell the property for his wife.

On July 14, a buyer responded to an ad which asked for $945,106. Four days later, Madam Natassha granted the new buyer an option to buy the flat for $945,000.

Both deals eventually went through.

Mr Yuen and Madam Wong found out about the re-sale only after the Central Provident Fund Board asked them about the disparity between the selling price and the valuation submitted by the new buyer's banker.

Their lawyer, Ms Gan Kam Yuin, argued that ERA made little effort to get the best possible price for the flat.

She questioned why Mr Ang did not place newspaper ads for the couple. Mr Ang said calling up his regular clients, who included Madam Natassha, constituted 'advertising'.

Ms Gan argued that the firm had placed itself in a position of conflict of interest.

But Mr Ang said there was no conflict because the buyer was not himself nor his wife.

Madam Natassha and her husband, Mr Mike Parikh from ERA, are expected to testify today.

Lawyers In Trouble: In The Soup Again Over Conflict Of Interest

Source : The Straits Times, Apr 7, 2008

Three counsel have become the first this year to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which hears cases of serious misconduct by lawyers. Law Correspondent K.C. Vijayan reports

SUSPENDED lawyer Vasantha Vardan will have to face the Court of Three Judges again on four new charges involving different clients - in circumstances similar to that for which she was penalised over a year ago.

In November 2006, she was found guilty of acting improperly in the case of a property agent who fleeced his clients, and was suspended for two years.

She had acted for the property agent as well as his clients, placing herself in a conflict-of-interest situation.

Ms Vardan, a lawyer since 1994, had failed to explain the contents of the documents to the clients - a couple trying to sell their home - and they ended up being cheated by housing agent Shaik Raheem Abdul Shaik Shaikh Dawood in 2001.

Shaik, 55, is serving 22 months behind bars for cheating.

In the present charges, Ms Vardan is said to have acted improperly in relation to three other couples and another woman who went to Shaik to sell their HDB flats and ended up short-changed by him.

The complainants were generally illiterate couples who were cash-strapped. The complaints occurred in 2001.

The disciplinary committee found no dishonesty on Ms Vardan’s part, but held that she had placed herself in a conflict- of-interest position.

Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim, prosecuting for the Law Society, said Ms Vardan had placed her own as well as Shaik’s interests over those of the complainants. ‘Members of the profession would be well advised to avoid all such situations of conflict of interest and to conscientiously advance the interests of their clients.’

Her lawyer, Mr Thangavelu, urged the committee to reprimand her or impose a fine instead of referring the case to the Court of Three Judges. Rejecting the plea, the committee said these were serious breaches of duty.

Entrapment defence fails in touting case

ENTRAPMENT as a defence did not save lawyer Rayney Wong from being referred to the Court of Three Judges for touting.

Mr Wong, a lawyer for the last 23 years, had offered referral fees to a Ms Jenny Lee, who had approached him with a property deal for his firm.

It turned out that Ms Lee was a private investigator working undercover, who recorded their conversations and then complained to the Law Society.

Ms Lee was part of a group of private investigators hired by some lawyers to check if competing law firms were offering fees to estate agents.

Faced with disciplinary committee hearings in 2005, Mr Wong refused to enter his defence then, claiming that Ms Lee’s evidence should be excluded because it was obtained by entrapment.

Mr Wong took this argument to the High Court and even to the Court of Appeal, but was turned down each time as the courts ruled that there was no entrapment.

When the case returned to the committee and it reconvened last year, Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the charge and urged the committee to reprimand or fine him instead of referring it to the Court of Three Judges.

His lawyer, Senior Counsel Sant Singh, said the fact that Mr Wong was entrapped and that he pleaded guilty were mitigating factors.

But the committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, said there was ‘no entrapment’, as Mr Wong offered the incentive to Ms Lee without incitement from her.

The committee also said it was ‘apparent’ this was not the first time Mr Wong had offered a referral fee.

It also said he decided to plead guilty only upon realising that his defence was almost certainly bound to fail and the guilty plea therefore carried ‘little weight’.

Accused of overcharging clients

A LAWYER has been referred to the Court of Three Judges for allegedly overcharging his clients.

It follows a hearing by a disciplinary committee, set up by the Chief Justice, which decided that lawyer Low Yong Sen had billed a couple three times more than what it felt would have been fair.

In all, Mr Low, a sole proprietor who has been in practice for about 15 years, billed his clients $4,300 in expenses he incurred in a property deal he handled for them in November 2005.

The committee felt $1,385 would have been a more reasonable amount, based on the Law Society’s submissions.

As part of that $4,300 bill, Mr Low had charged $1,850 for expenses related to his dealings with eight government departments.

The society’s valuation of that bit of work: $193.

For incidental expenses such as phone charges, Mr Low charged $350, seven times what the committee felt was reasonable.

A second misconduct charge involved Mr Low engaging his brother’s firm to undertake some services for his clients without informing them about their relationship, as required under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

Mr Low’s brother, Mr Michael Low, was also a secretary in his law firm.

The committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, held that the two charges were sufficiently serious to be referred to the Court of Three Judges.

The committee has alternative powers to fine or reprimand a lawyer if it considers the charge to be less serious.

Another charge for billing his clients $3,000 in legal fees was dropped as the committee felt it was not excessive.

律师图以佣金酬谢房地产经纪被私家侦探检举

《联合早报》Mar 11, 2008

又有一名律师因企图以佣金来酬谢冒充房地产经纪的私家侦探而可能面对检举。他疑不止一次有如此不当的行为。

拥有23年执业经验的黄庆良律师（50岁）承认在2004年2月17日，企图以佣金酬谢冒充房地产经纪的女私家侦探李佩钏介绍客户给他的事务所。

他答应给予李佩钏酬金，以为他当时所属的Rayney Wong & Eric Ng律师事务所获取一项有关加冕西路146号房地产交易的工作。

黄庆良当时是该事务所的合伙人。根据律师公会的网站，他如今在另一家事务所执业。

李佩钏过后向律师公会投诉，指黄庆良答应给她介绍客户的酬劳。律师公会因此在2005年向黄庆良展开调查。

黄庆良承认他提供酬金以换来经纪介绍客户，触犯了律师专业法令。根据该法令，律师不能以佣金或报酬来酬谢他人推荐客户。

此外，黄庆良也面对另一项控状，指他在2004年2月24日把从上述房地产交易中获得的500元律师费，抽出150元给李佩钏作为她推荐工作的酬劳。

律师公会过后把此事转交给大法官委任的纪律委员会调查。黄庆良的第二项指控交由纪委员会决定是否要向三司特别庭检举黄庆良时一并考虑。

纪委会在月前发表报告说，纪委会的四个成员在经过聆讯后一致裁定黄庆良的行为严重，不能只是受到纪委会谴责或罚款，而必须交由三司检举。纪委会的四个成员包括主席庄泓翔高级律师，而代表律师公会的律师则包括其会长黄锡义高级律师。黄庆良则由山星高级律师代表。

纪委会已向高庭提出由三司检举黄庆良的申请，高庭法官布卡拉斯将于星期四在内堂审理此申请。黄庆良到时可向法官解释，为何不该把此事转交三司。

若他无故缺席或理由不成立，此事就会呈交三司特别庭审理。受检举的律师可能面对的纪律处分有除名、执业资格被吊销不超过五年或谴责。反之，审理检举的三司也可能裁定指控不成立。

纪委会在19页长的报告中说，它认为这不是黄庆良首次提供这样的报酬。黄庆良求情时声称，这是他第一次，也是最后一次给予这样的酬劳。不过，纪委会成员是根据李佩钏偷偷录下她和黄庆良之间的谈话内容，一致认为黄庆良过去也曾如此非法奖赏房地产经纪。

不仅如此，纪委会也引述一个有类似行为的律师马佩如。这个律师因李佩钏推荐客户而给予后者介绍费。去年，马佩如的执照因此被吊销九个月。尽管证据确凿，她当时却不是马上承认指控。

纪委会以黄庆良与她作比较，指出“答辩人（黄庆良）的不当行为比马（佩如）的更严重，而对答辩人所施加的惩罚应更严厉”。　

黄庆良被指向高庭和最高法院上诉庭分别提出申请和上诉，在耗时、耗费后才承认他曾试图酬谢李佩钏。所以，虽然黄庆良以他承认指控作为求情因素之一，但纪委会认为在铁证如山前的认罪没有什么求情分量。

黄庆良在接受调查期间，因反对纪委会接受李佩钏的证词，以及不满她采取诱陷方式和偷录谈话，向高庭申请撤销纪委会采纳李佩钏证词的决定。但是，他的申请被拒。他就此向最高法院上诉，申请同样也被驳回。

对于黄庆良声称纪律审讯影响了他的健康，造成他患上抑郁症，且必须靠安眠药入睡，纪委会认为除非情况很特殊，否则这不是求情因素。

除了面对三司检举的可能性外，黄庆良也已答应承担律师公会在此纪律审讯中的10万元讼费。

Bad Experiences With Unprofessional Housing Agents

Source : The Straits Times, Feb 4, 2008

I WOULD like to highlight some unpleasant experiences with housing agents in Singapore and, hopefully, I might find someone who shares the same problem as I do.

These happened while I was looking for an apartment to rent.

One housing agent advertise an apartment as renovated, but when we reached the apartment, we found that renovation had not been done, and that it would depend how much we had to offer.

Last week, an agent from PropNex advertised an apartment for rent. The ad stated the size of the flat and I even called to confirm the size and was also told that there was a maid room. But when we arrived, there was no maid room and the size of the flat was about 300 sq ft smaller.

I have written to PropNex about this incident, but have yet to get a reply.

Is there any real estate association in Singapore that governs these agents?

Melvenie Rasmussen (Mrs)

Use Independent Body? Lawyers Back Idea But Raise Concerns

Source : The Sunday Times, Jan 06, 2008

LAWYERS gave the thumbs up to the news that the Chief Justice is considering a scheme to bar lawyers from receiving money from their clients.

But they also say that such a scheme, which would possibly entail the money being parked with an independent body, may lead to an increase in time and costs incurred for those buying and selling property.

This raises the question: Will clients be willing to pay administrative fees and experience bureaucratic delays in order to protect their money from the one or two bad apples in the barrel?

Sole proprietor Vijay Kumar said he was in favour of the money being held by an independent body. ‘There have been all these changes - tightening the rules, having more signatories - but the problem has never gone away.’

Mr Rajan Menon, senior partner at law firm KhattarWong, is also all for protecting clients’ money. ‘We must develop a system where the client is fully protected, so that no errant lawyer will have the chance to help himself to the money,’ he said.

Lawyers point out that a similar stakeholding scheme is already in place.

Buyers of buildings under construction have to park 5 per cent of the purchase price with the Singapore Academy of Law.

The money is released to the developer only after the 12-month defects liability period.

Mr Mark Chua, conveyancing partner at Tito Isaac &; Co, said it may make legal sense for the academy to hold the money. But from an economic standpoint, this may not be perfect.

He said that legal clients have to realise that efficiency may be compromised. There will be many procedures to undertake and more forms will have to be filled.

While lawyers can act to release the money almost immediately, an independent body may need some lead time.

Mr Chua pointed out that if the cheques came in late - something which would then result in late completion - there would be a question of who would have to bear the penalty.

It remains to be seen how such a system will work out.

He said: ‘In theory, it’s a good thing.’

Mr Menon believed that the money should be kept in banks and administered by the Law Society, a kind of conveyancing transaction settlement system.

He acknowledged that this may increase costs, which would be needed to fund the running of such a system. Nevertheless, he said it would also be possible that the interest earned could offset the costs.

‘Who’s going to pay? Because of the misdemeanours of one or two lawyers, are we going to change the system of more than 100 years?

‘There are no easy answers,’ he said.

Whatever the scheme, it will have to be studied very carefully, said Mr Vijay, in order to ensure that it does not create a new set of problems.

Mr Chua said: ‘At the end of the day, you can put in as many systems as you want. If a person is determined to take the money, he will find a way of doing it.’

Committee To Be Set Up To Study Issue Of Lawyers Embezzling Clients' Monies

Source : Channel NewsAsia, 05 January 2008

The legal profession is forming a committee to find solutions to the problem of errant lawyers siphoning clients' monies.

This is a further response to recent cases where lawyers were involved in shady real estate deals that have gone bad.

This was announced at the opening of the Legal Year 2008. It is an annual tradition for the Chief Justice to open a new legal year at the start of a new year.

Related Video Link - http://tinyurl.com/2qxw43

Apart from lawyers rededicating themselves to their profession, it is also a time to reflect on the past year.

For Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, it is an opportunity to report on the administration of justice in Singapore.

Touching on the issue of professional ethics, Chief Justice Chan noted the spate of disciplinary actions against errant conveyancers where work was solicited from real estate agents and illegal moneylenders.

Last year, the Law Society tightened rules to curb lawyers from misappropriating monies from clients.

But the Chief Justice noted such measures cannot stop or prevent desperate or crooked lawyers from bending the rules.

He said the legal profession will have to face reality and come up with a solution.

Chief Justice Chan said: "The obvious solution is to bar lawyers from receiving clients' monies. However, this will change radically a conveyancing system which has been in place for more than one hundred years. It may be a serious effect on the efficiency of the property market. We need to study the ramifications of such a change."

The Chief Justice has appointed Judge of Appeal, Justice VK Rajah, to head a working committee to find ways to solve the problem.

The committee will also comprise stakeholders from the property market. It is expected to make its recommendations in three to five months.

Dr G Raman from GR Law Corporation said: "It's unfortunate these errant lawyers, black sheep in the profession, give this kind of adverse publicity to the profession. The vast majority of lawyers are upright and honest practitioners."

"In the old days, we called ourselves an honourable profession, learned friends of the Bar.....it is good (to set up the committee). We should be able to restore the status and prestige of the profession," said C B Yeow from CB Yeow and Company.

Speaking at the opening of the legal year for the first time was Mr Michael Hwang, who took over as the new president of the Law Society.

He later told reporters that initial investigations into the most recent case of a lawyer embezzling a client's money showed it was more likely an issue of personal misconduct rather than a deficiency in the system. - CNA/ir

CJ Considers Stricter Rules For Lawyers

Source: The Sunday Times, Jan 06, 2008

TIGHTER rules have already been put in place, but it seems there are still ways for a lawyer to make off with clients' money.

Now, the Chief Justice is wondering if lawyers should be barred from holding clients' money altogether.

He has appointed Judge of Appeal V. K. Rajah to head a committee to study whether such a system is feasible and desirable.

CJ Chan Sek Keong made the announcement at the opening of the legal year yesterday, attended by judges, lawyers, legal officers and other members of the legal community.

Six new Senior Counsel were appointed at the ceremony, and new Law Society president Michael Hwang made his debut speech.

As is customary, the CJ gave a report card of the work of the courts in the past year and announced new initiatives, such as a website for lawyers to keep up to date with legal developments.

Without naming names, CJ Chan referred to the case of rogue lawyer Zulkifli Amin, who went missing in November. He apparently skipped town for the Philippines after siphoning some $6 million of his clients' money.

Last year, the Law Society tightened the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, which govern how lawyers handle clients' money, as a better check against embezzlement.

This change followed from at least eight cases where lawyers ran off with millions. One of them, David Rasif, swiped $12 million and is now missing.

'But the latest incident shows that these measures cannot prevent desperate or crooked lawyers from helping themselves to clients' monies,' the CJ said.

Mr Zulkifli is the first errant lawyer since the new rules came into force to protect clients' money. Among the rules: two signatures are needed to withdraw sums higher than $30,000.

Investigations are ongoing, but according to sources, Mr Zulkifli may have forged the second signature or perpetuated some fraud.

Yesterday, CJ Chan said: 'We need to face reality and come up with a workable scheme to protect clients' monies.'

While the obvious solution was to prohibit lawyers from receiving clients' money, this would 'change radically a conveyancing system which has been in place for more than a hundred years', he acknowledged.

It may also affect the efficiency of the property market, a concern lawyers interviewed also raised.

Justice Rajah's working party, which will comprise representatives of all stakeholders in the property market, will study the ramifications of such a change, he said.

It has been given three to five months to study the problem and make its recommendations.

Lawyers interviewed yesterday were in favour of such a system, saying it will probably involve an independent body holding or administering the money.

Speaking to reporters, Senior Counsel Hwang said he did not think the Chief Justice is thinking about a total ban because there have not been any problems with lawyers who hold clients' money in non-property transactions.

'You can't abolish this thing overnight. If we abolish the holding of clients' money, we will probably be the only country in the common law world to do so,' he said.

'Whatever system you have, you can't stop outright, deliberate, malicious embezzlement. All you can do is try and make it more difficult.'

Rogue Lawyers Hurting Small Firms'

Source : The Electic New Paper, January 03, 2008

SMALL law firms are hurting from big crimes committed by rogue lawyers.

Some say potential clients are now giving them a miss and banks are reluctant to deal with them.

Generally, a small firm is one with fewer than six lawyers.

A medium-sized firm is a firm with six to 25 lawyers.

Any firm with more than 25 lawyers is considered a big firm.

A lawyer, who declined to be named, used to run a medium-sized firm before he gave up the business to pursue other interests.

He said following the bad publicity, banks and clients have lost faith in one-man firms in handling their money in conveyancing work.

He said it all started with rogue lawyer David Rasif.

The fugitive lawyer was the sole proprietor of David Rasif & Partners and made off in June last year with $11 million of his clients' money.

He is still at large.

To make matters worse, Rasif wasn't the only rogue lawyer to make the news.

The lawyer said: 'Anecdotal evidence suggests many small law firms and one-man firms are getting less conveyancing work.

'They are also not chosen to act for property clients.

'The reason is because they have to hold their clients' money and these clients are now more reluctant to let them do that.'

He explained that in conveyancing, the buyer of a property will pay a certain percentage of the sale price, usually 9 per cent, to the lawyer of the seller.

That lawyer will then bank that cheque into his client's account and will hold this money until the completion of the sale of the property, which is usually after three months.

TEMPTATION

This is where the problem arises when lawyers get tempted and spend the money.

The Law Society of Singapore has introduced measures to prevent such theft. (See report at bottom right).

But it is little comfort when your reputation has been hit, say some.

Mr Mark Goh, 40, has been running his one-man firm for 13 years. He handles criminal, litigation and civil cases.

He said: 'I have met clients of more than 10 years who will jokingly remind me about stories of lawyers who have taken their clients' money.

'They stop short at that.

'But an astute person will know that they are hinting to me, 'Don't do this to me', 'Can I trust you?'

'It hurts me because lawyers trade on their reputation.'

He said lawyers set up one-man firms because it allows them to be more independent and they can also choose the kind of cases they want to work on.

He said he has heard from banks that they will not go to one-man operations because they don't trust them any more.

Mr Goh said that, now when he wins a civil case, he will ask the losing party to pay his client directly.

But Mr Goh said he has never been tempted when handling money.

Said Mr Goh: 'It's my rice bowl. And I don't fancy living the life of a fugitive, where you are on the run all the time.

A sole proprietor, who declined to be named, said he has been running his firm for 10 years.

He said: 'Banks now don't appoint you on their panel to act for them.

'Previously, they used to appoint small firms but, possibly because of the bad publicity, they now go for the bigger firms.

'But this can affect any firm, even medium- and bigger-sized ones.

'It all boils down to your values system. Whether you value honesty, integrity and hard work.'

For Mr An Kanagavijayan, 50, who has run his own one-man firm for 10 years, things have not changed.

He said because he doesn't stick to one area of law, he has not been affected by the changes or the publicity.

He handles divorce, criminal, litigious and civil cases.

NOT AFFECTED

The father of two children, one in junior college and the other in secondary school, said: 'There has been no impact on me because my clients trust me very much.

'I work hard for my living. As long as a lawyer does that, he does not have to worry.

'Besides, I am a father. Where can I run to?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROGUE LAWYERS

David Rasif

Disappeared with $11m of clients' money in June last year.

Still at large.


Zulkifli Amin

Took $6m of clients' money and disappeared in November.

Still at large.


David Khong Siak Meng

Disappeared in August with $68,000 of client's money.

Still at large.


Victor Tan

Disappeared with $32,000 of clients' money in September.

Still at large.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW SOCIETY'S CHANGES

# No withdrawal of client funds from ATM machines

# Can't draw such monies in cash cheques or bearer cheques without leave from a High Court judge

# Cheque amounts exceeding $30,000 require two signatures

# Lawyer with fewer than three years' experience can't sign cheque to withdraw monies

Runaway Lawyer Zulkifli Amin - He Flew To Philippines And Billed His Firm

Source : The Straits Times, Jan 2, 2008

Lawyer may have also used part of missing $6m to pay costs of delayed property deals

bolted to the Philippines on an air ticket he did not pay for. It was billed to his law firm.

As more details surface from efforts to trace more than $6 million that went missing when he vanished in November, it has also emerged that he may have used some of the money to settle costs incurred from delayed property deals.

Mr Zulkifli, 33, a lawyer for about seven years, was one of three partners in law firm Sadique Marican and ZM Amin. His partners alerted the authorities when he disappeared and a police probe is ongoing.

He headed the firm’s conveyancing and real estate department. The Straits Times understands that as the property market took off last year, he took on more work than he could handle.

He had more than a dozen secretaries who processed and handled clients’ matters, said a staff member who resigned recently. Typically, a lawyer would have up to five assistants to cope with similar property-related work.

It is believed that some of Mr Zulkifli’s transactions stalled when he could not complete his work on time and there were penalties to pay for the delays.

One such transaction is believed to have led to a $200,000 penalty for a property valued at $700,000, after a delay caused the seller to offer the property to another buyer at $900,000.

A property seller who lost money on a deposit due to him from Mr Zulkifli alleged that the lawyer dipped into some other client’s monies in the firm’s account to fork out the difference and make the original deal stick. Such payments are not allowed and as his troubles piled up, they may have snowballed.

The current rules are that two lawyers must sign cheques to withdraw money from a client’s account for any amount exceeding $30,000, among other things. It appears that Mr Zulkifli acted alone and may have forged the second signature or perpetrated some other fraud.

It is believed the $6 million disappeared as he kept ‘rolling’ money to pay penalties, but it is unclear how much he kept for himself before he fled.

More than a dozen people have reported that their deposits with the firm’s conveyancing section went missing.

It is understood investigators are now trying to establish the extent of unauthorised payoffs he made, and attempts are expected to be made to reclaim these monies.

Meanwhile, the firm remains open for business at its premises at the HDB Hub in Toa Payoh Central. Only the conveyancing section was affected by Mr Zulkifli’s disappearance.

‘We’ve secured the interests of all the affected clients and our other work is going on,’ partner Sadique Marican said, when contacted by The Straits Times.

Two victims said they would give the firm more time to settle the outstanding amounts owed.

Mail company manager John Sasayiah, who lost some $26,000 in deposits, said: ‘We want to be fair to them but, at the same time, I hope to see some closure by this month.’

Mr Zulkifli, a bachelor, lived at his family home in Chai Chee until about two years ago. He and his younger sister moved out after their mother died of cancer in 2005. Their father had died earlier.

‘The family kept to themselves and hardly mixed with anyone,’ said a neighbour who had lived in his block in Chai Chee Street for more than 20 years.

‘Even when their mother died, we did not know.’

前公寓管理代理疑卷走20万元

《联合早报》Dec 27, 2007

前公寓管理代理（managing agent）疑亏空管理费和累积基金（sinking fund）后下落不明，她可能卷走高达20万元。

这名疑卷款失踪的前公寓管理代理相信是一名30余岁印族女子，相信她是从2003年到去年以伪造支票和窜改财务账目，从4所公寓的管理费和累积基金骗走超过20万元。

其中一所遭殃的公寓是实里基路一带的“亚迪斯台”（Adis Villas），居民月前收到公寓管理委员会寄出的后天召开常年大会通知，附上一份警方寄给公寓管委会主席的报告。这份日期为今年四月的报告，详细列出前管理代理被捕后将面对205项伪造和意图欺骗的控状。

据了解，这名前公寓管理代理已逃离新加坡超过一年，警方正在追查她的下落。

除了警方的报告，“亚迪斯台”居民也收到常年大会议程，从中得知有两项款额错误地被注销（written-off），其中10万4000元相信是被公寓管理代理盗用，另一笔6万元因为纪录不正确，导致稽核员无法追查。

“亚迪斯台”管委会主席黄健强（译音）在去年6月14日曾发信告诉居民，当他发现管理费和累积基金的款项从2003年9月开始神秘“消失”后，在当年5月报警。

五楼一名女住户昨晚受访时说：“这是非常不幸的事，竟然会有如此糟糕的管理层。”
　　
部分居民受访时则无奈地表示钱已被盗用，现在又能怎么办？

另外三所同样遭遇的是苏菲雅山公寓（Mount Sophia Apartments）、苏菲雅大厦（Sophia Apartments）和柏利卡大厦（Pelikat Mansions)。据悉，前两所公寓被盗走约7万元。警方发言人受询时证实正在调查一名30余岁女子。

物业管理公司Knight Frank Estate Management董事经理梁明才告诉媒体，研究显示房地产管理的水平主要取决于两方面：管理费和累积基金，以及管理公司和屋主租户的期望。

公寓管理代理的责任是把这两大因素处理妥当，一方面善用有限的管理费为公寓保值，再做长远计划，必要时能用累积基金为公寓增添设施，为住户提供增值服务；另一方面则是让屋主租户都住得称心，加强住户间的凝聚力，让公寓有更好的口碑。

梁明才说，一些公寓管委会由于没有清楚地了解公寓管理代理的职责，如执行职务时所必须遵守的条例，结果公寓管理代理的服务无法达到要求。更糟的是，公寓管理代理服务不好，对公寓所造成的“损失”须经过一段长时间才会浮出台面。