Bankrupt property agent admits to faking sales to get advance commissions
In one instance, another real estate agent had to repay most of the full advance commission of S$91,653 that had been delivered over a fraudulent sale.
File photo of the State Courts in Singapore.
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: A bankrupt property agent faked sales in order to get advance commissions, tricking fellow agents into helping him, and leaving them to pay the debts.
Cheong En Kiong, a 51-year-old Singaporean, pleaded guilty on Tuesday (Sep 8) to four charges which include forgery, cheating and receiving benefits from criminal conduct.
Several other charges will be considered in sentencing.
The court heard that Cheong has been an undischarged bankrupt since 2019.
He is obligated to make monthly payments to his creditors, and he also owed money to his friends and unlicensed moneylenders.
At the time of the offences, Cheong was a real estate agent with ERA Real Estate Singapore. As of Tuesday, he is no longer listed on the Council for Estate Agencies’ public register.
THE S$11 MILLION PROPERTY
In June 2022, Cheong asked a 38-year-old real estate agent he had known for a decade to be the co-broker for the sale of a property in Prudential Tower.
The woman was recovering from injuries from an accident at the time.
Cheong chose the property at 30 Cecil Street as it was worth about S$11 million (US$8.7 million) and would yield higher advance commissions.
Cheong told the woman, named only as A1 in court papers, that he needed money urgently and said he was unable to make a submission for advance commission from LytePay.
LytePay is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and disburses advance commissions to real estate agents in exchange for processing fees.
It works by first delivering advance commissions to real estate agents. When the seller of the property pays the commission due to the real estate agent’s company, the company then deducts the advance commission already received by the real estate agent and repays the remainder to LytePay.
Cheong told A1 that she would receive S$5,000 of commission for co-broking. He said he would cover and include her Medisave and income tax for the sale.
A1 believed Cheong was extending her a genuine opportunity and agreed. She had no experience with such a large sale before and Cheong told her he would prepare the documents for her to submit on LytePay.
Cheong forged the signatures in several documents including an option to purchase and a seller’s commission agreement.
A1 then submitted the documents to LytePay, requesting an advance commission.
LytePay delivered S$91,653 to A1, who deducted her share and transferred about S$83,500 to Cheong.
Cheong used the money to settle his debts.
Six months later, ERA discovered that the purported buyer had not sent the agency their commission for the sale.
It discovered Cheong’s fraudulent actions after an internal investigation and issued him with a warning.
ERA asked A1 and Cheong to repay the full advance commission of S$91,653 that LytePay delivered.
To date, Cheong has paid only about S$10,000 to S$12,000 of this sum and A1 had to bear the remaining amount. She also received a statutory demand from LytePay, which deducted her commission on other sold properties to offset the amount owed.
A1 has tried asking Cheong to repay her the full amount multiple times, to no avail, the prosecutor said.
THE LUCKY PLAZA PROPERTY
Despite receiving a warning from ERA, Cheong offended again.
In October 2025, he went to the home of a former customer who was then aged 69, named B1 in court documents.
He lied that there was a buyer for a commercial property in Lucky Plaza owned by B1.
He then said he needed B1’s signature to exercise the option to purchase.
B1 signed on some blank documents.
Cheong then deceived his friend, a 63-year-old OrangeTee & Tie real estate agent with prostate cancer, into co-brokering the sale with him.
He said he needed money urgently due to his debts and business losses, and his friend agreed to help, thinking the unit was genuinely being sold.
Cheong forged signatures in some of the required documents and handed them to his friend, who submitted the documents to OrangeTee, requesting an advance commission via LytePay.
LytePay delivered S$7,955 to Cheong’s friend, who gave S$4,700 to Cheong.
Cheong had also deceived his friend into co-brokering a sale of a unit at Prudential Tower in July 2025, once again receiving an advance commission from LytePay.
OrangeTee later sent a letter of reminder to the purported seller of the Prudential Tower unit, saying the company owed OrangeTee about SS$135,300 in agency fees.
A director of the company informed OrangeTee that the company had not, in fact, sold the unit.
OrangeTee conducted internal investigations and discovered the fraudulent transactions done by Cheong for both the Prudential unit and the Lucky Plaza unit.
The company fired Cheong’s friend and made him bear the total amount of advance commission he received from both sales – a sum of about S$86,000.
Those involved lodged police reports in October 2025.
To date, Cheong has made no restitution to OrangeTee, his friend, or to LytePay.
He has been remanded since early April this year.
The prosecutor sought 24.5 to 28 months’ jail, saying that Cheong exploited his own friends who trusted him.
He left them “saddled with substantial financial obligations to LytePay”, obligations which he would have understood as a bankrupt of several years’ standing, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Kelly Ng.
Defence lawyer Riko Isaac from Riko Isaac Legal sought 18.5 to 21.5 months’ jail instead.
He said his client had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and fully cooperated with the authorities.
The case was adjourned to October for sentencing.
For cheating or forgery to commit cheating, he could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.
For acquiring property that are the benefits of criminal conduct, he could be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or
Source: CNA/ll
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
