by

July 7, 2026

14 minutes

Read Time

Man testifies he felt cheated, intimidated by Raymond Ng in vending machine case; Ng says he’s lying

An alleged victim who bought a lot to co-own a coffee vending machine testified on how he never got any returns and was grilled by the accused.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Lydia Lam

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 man who bought a lot to “co-own” a coffee vending machine after attending a presentation by Raymond Ng Kai Hoe testified on Tuesday (Jul 7) that he never received a cent in return for his “investment”.

Instead, he said he felt cheated and intimidated by Ng, whom he claims reacted by threatening to sue for defamation.

Ng, a 53-year-old Singaporean and husband of Iris Koh, founder of anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide, is on trial for six charges of cheating.

He is accused of cheating six people into paying more than S$25,000 (US$19,326) in total to his company, Candle Consulting, between August 2019 and October 2020.

THE POST BY NG ON COURT PROCEEDINGS

Tuesday’s proceedings opened with the prosecution flashing a post by Ng on his VendShare website on a screen in the courtroom.

The post contained a graphic titled: “What The News Didn’t Tell You”.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Hui Choon Kuen said the post was in relation to court proceedings from Monday, and that Ng was making comments on a witness while proceedings were ongoing.

“Perhaps the accused should be reminded or told that he should not be posting any comments in relation to proceedings that are likely to prejudice the conduct of proceedings,” said Mr Hui.

District Judge Lim Tse Haw asked Ng if he had posted this. Ng said he posted a video.

Judge Lim then told him the prosecution had an issue not with the video but with the post, as it was commenting on evidence by a witness.

“Yes I did post it on VendShare but I would like to explain … the thing is that in this post I did not pre-judge the matter,” answered Ng.

The judge told him that it was not a matter of pre-judging, but of commenting on the evidence of a witness.

“Yesterday CNA was also making a news report,” replied Ng. “So why is CNA reporting on this proceeding different?”

The judge told him that there was a difference in terms of reporting what the witness said factually and giving comment, which was what Ng had done.

“I do not think that CNA reporting … is full or complete,” said Ng.

The judge said he was not saying it was complete, but that one can report factually but not add their own comment.

Ng later agreed not to repeat his actions.

PROSECUTION CALLS ALLEGED VICTIM

The prosecution then called its second witness, Mr Bryan Chua, an alleged victim named in one of the charge sheets.

Mr Chua introduced himself as a real estate salesperson and said he first came to know of VendShare on Facebook and Instagram when he came across advertisements on a “co-ownership investment scheme”.

He said he registered his interest and was invited to attend a presentation which Ng conducted in 2019.

Mr Chua said what he understood from the presentation was that he would co-share a vending machine which would be placed in certain locations.

Mr Chua was interested in the “combo” location for Arab Street and Joo Chiat.

“What I understood is every vending machine would be limited, by way of, there would be limited lots for machines, for people to participate or to purchase into. As such, after the presentation, I bought one lot,” he said.

He said one lot cost S$3,000. He made the first deposit or payment of S$500 by PayNow, and the rest was to be paid via six monthly instalments which were deducted from his debit card.

He expected to receive a passive monthly income of S$500 in return.

Asked how the lots or shares in the coffee vending machines were marketed or sold, Mr Chua said that he understood he would get a passive income from the coffee sales from the vending machine.

This would happen “as soon as” or immediately after he took part in the investment scheme.

He said he understood that VendShare would take care of the vending machine.

“During the presentation … there was no mention about us having to take care of the vending machine, like it will be taken care of for us,” said Mr Chua.

He said there was no contractual documentation when he decided to “invest”.

After this, he was added into a group on WhatsApp for co-owners of the machines at the Arab Street and Joo Chiat locations.

A franchise agreement was sent to the group, said Mr Chua.

“At that point in time I didn’t know what this franchise agreement was all about, because it was totally foreign to me,” he said.

“And um, Mr Raymond Ng would say that the moment we read it, it’s deemed as we signed it without any signature or … any other form of formal acknowledgment,” said Mr Chua.

He said he did not know what to do after receiving the agreement, so he just read it and acknowledged that he had read it.

He said he did not agree that he would have been deemed to have agreed with it just by reading it.

Mr Chua said many other co-owners in the group were puzzled by the document and began to talk inside the group.

“After some questioning in the group or some discussion, there were a few instances whereby Mr Raymond Ng would turn aggressive,” said Mr Chua.

“He would, to the effect … raise his displeasure with people who questioned about the document and who raised their concerns,” he said.

He said he became more and more distressed, thinking why Ng acted in this manner and feeling a little intimidated by his actions.

The concerns raised included how the vending machine operated and how much revenue it generated, said Mr Chua.

“From the onset of my participation in the group till today actually I received zero dollars and zero cents,” he said. “I assume there was no money that the machine, like, generated. That was my reasonable assumption.”

He said that when some members of the group asked for a refund, Ng expressed his displeasure again and threatened to void their ownership completely.

This would result in them being kicked out of the WhatsApp chat group and was “financially disastrous” to them, said Mr Chua.

He added that he and other attendees at the presentation were urged to make a decision quickly, because the locations were in high demand and they needed to act in order not to miss out.

He said Ng termed it as a “breach of contract” so it became the fault of the co-owners for losing their investment.

Mr Chua said the people who had their ownership voided “felt cheated”. Those who remained in the group felt even more intimidated and did not know whether it was just a matter of time before their ownership was similarly voided.

There were also no concrete updates in the group about how the machine was doing or earning, and when the returns would be paid out, said Mr Chua.

He said he would not have invested if he had been told during the presentation that he did not actually have co-ownership.

“What I understood is, as a co-owner of a coffee machine, which is a physical thing that is dispensing a real thing meaning cups of coffee, then the business model sounded sound enough to me to take part in,” said Mr Chua.

He said other than the financial loss, he was affected psychologically by the intimidation by Ng.

He claimed Ng would threaten to sue for defamation if he or other co-owners made out that he had cheated or scammed them.

The prosecution tendered a police report lodged by Mr Chua late at night on Nov 28, 2020.

NG CROSS-EXAMINES WITNESS

Ng, who is representing himself in the case, opened his cross-examination by telling Mr Chua that his duty was to the court and not to the police, prosecutor or Ng.

He then asked about Mr Chua’s educational levels. An exchange occurred where Mr Chua asked why this was necessary and Ng told him it was not for him to ask this. At one point Mr Chua also asked Ng to speak “with courtesy” and the judge got Ng to move on.

Mr Chua said he had a diploma in mass communications from Ngee Ann Polytechnic as well as a real estate salesperson licence.

Ng then asked him if he had a basic understanding of contract law and used an example of house renovation to ask if Mr Chua knew that he could be seen to agree to a contract if he paid a deposit and agreed to a renovation timeline even if there was no signed contract.

Mr Chua responded that there were elements that had to be satisfied in the forming of a valid contract. However, he acknowledged that a signature was not absolutely necessary for a contract to be valid.

Ng also asked Mr Chua if he had ever had private meetings or personal talks with him other than in the WhatsApp group or group Zoom sessions.

Mr Chua said he did not and Ng continued questioning him.

At one point, Ng declared that he honestly thought the next witness could go home. He later explained that he would take the rest of Tuesday and potentially part of Wednesday to cross-examine Mr Chua.

Ng then said that since all the allegations Mr Chua made against him were not through verbal communication, it had to be through the WhatsApp group.

He asked Mr Chua to go through the WhatsApp log line by line and show which parts proved that he did what Mr Chua said he did.

The prosecutor objected and said it was not a fair question as the log in question had to firstly be identified before being placed before the witness for him to go through.

The judge said this would take time and asked Ng to cross-examine the witness on other areas.

On questioning by Ng, Mr Chua said he signed up for the scheme after the presentation. He said he was not presented with a receipt, invoice or order form.

Ng asked him to show evidence of his first payment via PayNow. Mr Chua said he was 100 per cent sure he paid it but that he was unable to produce the screenshot.

He said he believed he had it, but that it was in his old phone. He was unable to retrieve it as the bank account associated with the payment had been closed.

Ng repeatedly reminded Mr Chua to remember that he was on oath. He told him that he was very sure he had given Mr Chua an order form, despite Mr Chua denying this.

He then asked if Mr Chua had signed one when he made the alleged S$500 payment.

Mr Chua said he did. He said he kept a copy of it but later misplaced it.

Asked why he did not retain it, Mr Chua said his feeling of being cheated came only months after the signing of the form, during which he misplaced it.

Ng then asked him if he had signed up for the income potential or to co-own the coffee machine.

Mr Chua said both were equally important.

Ng then showed him Mr Chua’s police report and asked why the co-owning portion was not mentioned in it. He asserted that Mr Chua had signed up for the income.

Ng asked Mr Chua why he had an obligation to manage the machine for him if this was a “pure co-ownership contract”. Mr Chua responded that it was part of Ng’s business.

NG CLAIMS WITNESS WAS LYING

Ng later pointed to the police report lodged by Mr Chua and said Mr Chua had been lying on the stand when he said he had never met Ng in person before.

On the day Mr Chua lodged the police report, Ng said he had a private meeting with Mr Chua and Ng’s staff members and recorded the whole conversation.

He asked Mr Chua why he did not highlight this earlier. Mr Chua said this meeting did not pertain to the co-ownership opportunity nor was it to get him to sign up. Instead, the meeting came about because Mr Chua alerted some people and Ng’s staff alerted him to it.

The judge asked Mr Chua what the purpose of this meeting was.

“The meeting was meant to threaten me,” said Mr Chua. “And for the record, I also do have the recording of the video-conferencing.”

In the subsequent questioning, Ng pressed Mr Chua to “don’t think, just answer” multiple times.

The judge intervened several times. He told Ng he could put some points in submissions at the end of the trial.

At one point Ng tried to talk over the judge and was told to wait and that he would have the opportunity to make his point.

“I scared I will forget,” he responded.

“So you want to put to him that he is lying,” asked Judge Lim, referring to Mr Chua.

“Not so fast. I need to have some foreplay first,” said Ng before quickly apologising for his choice of words.

Mr Chua had explained that the charges levied against Ng were cheating charges, so his frame of mind was on the first presentation he attended by Ng.

“You are fitting the evidence to the charge,” Ng said to Mr Chua.

“To be fair, he did not say that,” pointed out Judge Lim.

“My point is that right, when you give evidence right, why do you care what I’m being charged with?” Ng asked Mr Chua.

The judge tried to interject but Ng told him he had a different point to put to Mr Chua.

“He said it very clearly,” said Ng. “His thinking, come to the stand, based on the charge, he give evidence based on my charge. I put it to you, you are just framing your evidence to the charge you think I’m being charged with, because your evidence you gave just now indicates that.”

When Mr Chua did not respond immediately, Ng raised his voice: “Don’t think just answer!”

“Mr Ng, please behave yourself,” said Judge Lim. “The witness is entitled to take his time to answer your question.”

“Think of how to lie to me,” said Ng.

“Please do not behave in an unruly manner in court,” said the judge.

Mr Chua said he was not framing his evidence.

The court then broke for lunch. The trial continues with Ng set to continue cross-examining Mr Chua.

If convicted of cheating, Ng could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined per charge.

Source: CNA/ll

Inbox