-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
ERA says agent in flipping case done no wrong
- Thread starter besotted
- Start date
Now, if I got something that worth 700k to sell. Is it not natural to estimate property value thru a few sources then decide how much to price it and sell it?
Seriously, if I'm facing an idiot asking me to legally earn his 275k. It is very hard to say no.
Agents are great for kicking around cos they have too much time on their hand to smoke away their lives. Make their run around and slowly decide what to do next. Not the other way around.
Seriously, if I'm facing an idiot asking me to legally earn his 275k. It is very hard to say no.
Agents are great for kicking around cos they have too much time on their hand to smoke away their lives. Make their run around and slowly decide what to do next. Not the other way around.
In all walks of life, there will be idiots, the trusting ones, the less capable. You find them amongst kids, adults, the educated and the uneducated. Does not mean that you have take advantage of them.
That agent was paid a service. He did not follow ethics when he did that. Its quarter of a million for christ sake.
Flipping is well know in the industry. The agents call all the banks as part of their "free" valuation service, tell the client (seller) the lowest valuation and then when they flip, they introduce the buyer ( the 2nd buyer in this case) to the highest valuation bank. The gaps for the less than $1M can be up to $200K for small developments. This seems to be really unusual case where the gap is higher.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
February 5, 2009 Thursday
Updated 2.11 pm
February 5, 2009 Thursday
Updated 2.11 pm
Feb 5, 2009
ERA ordered to pay $257k
By Selina Lum
REAL estate agency ERA has been ordered by the High Court to cough up $257,000 and other expenses to a married couple whose property agent had acted in conflict of interest.
Mr Yuen Chow Hin and Madam Wong Wai Fan engaged ERA agent Jeremy Ang to sell their downtown apartment in mid-2007.
But soon after the couple were granted the right to purchase the property for $688,000, the two-bedroom apartment at The Riverside Piazza was resold for $945,000.
It was only later that the couple found about the second deal and that the woman who bought their flat, then flipped it for a profit, was married to the boss of their housing agent.
The couple sued ERA Realty Network in the High Court seeking $257,000 - the difference between the two sale prices.
On Thursday, Justice Choo Han Teck ruled in favour of the couple and found that the conduct of the agent Jeremy Ang and his boss, Mike Parikh, amounted to breach of duty and fraud.
The two men were 'ethically wrong and in breach of contract by reason of creating a conflict of interest between their client and themselves', said the judge.
When a property agent is engaged to sell or buy property, he has a responsibility to act in the interests of the person who hired him - not his own, or his friends', or his relatives' or his boss', said the judge.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Bro SilverFox :
....On Thursday, Justice Choo Han Teck ruled in favour of the couple and found that the conduct of the agent Jeremy Ang and his boss, Mike Parikh, amounted to breach of duty and fraud ...
.... dear bro SFox , can share why a) ERA ended up coughing up the S$257K ? Why are those agts involved no need to pay ?
(b) since there is element of FRAUD mentioned then why police not involved ?
please share views ... thank you
Z
Zombie
Guest
The Good
The Glads
And the Unlucky
The Glads
And the Unlucky
a)The agents will cough out this secret profit. ERA will get them to cough out or else these agents may not be able to practise anymore as I don't think any realty cos will want to take them in. This is what I think. I don't think ERA got this chunk of $257K, they only got the percentage cut when the agents submit the deals to the company.
b)This is a civil case and fraud is a more serious offence. The intent of the agents involved was not on cheating but more on withholding information from the seller, getting them to sign.
Hope the sellers and others get smarter from this incident.
I have a question which borders on a thin line. In year 2006, I bought a property at $1.5million, after I bought it, the very same agent who sold me the house came over to me and ask me whether I am keen to sell at $1.8million since I haven't exercise the option. It is a cool $300K into pocket for a less than 2 weeks transaction.
If I take up the offer, will I get sued by the seller for profiting and flipping?
Actually if i don't know the new buyer, the seller will have no case against me. But the above ERA scenario means the agents involved are foolish, never do their homework properly. Just 1 case can clean their backside.
Alas, I did not take up the offer, because I told my company that we should develop and sell it instead. :o
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Hmm... guessed you made the right decision because the pty mkt moved up in year 2007 and early part of year 2008 ...
Bro , do you think more people ( those in similar situations kena cheated by agent who flip their pty ) will sue and take legal action now that the High Court decision is out ?
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
The Good
The Glads
And the Unlucky
No secret buyer or profit, says property exec's wife
23 Jan, 2009
By Selina Lum
THE wife of a senior property agent who bought an apartment through
her husband's subordinate, then quickly sold it for a $257,000
profit, yesterday refuted claims that she had made a 'secret profit'
from the deal.
Madam Natassha Sadiq, 40, told the High Court her purchase of the
downtown flat from Mr Yuen Chow Hin and Madam Wong Wai Fan was done
on a 'willing buyer and willing seller' basis.
Mr Yuen, 50, and Madam Wong, 48, have sued ERA Realty Network to seek
profits from the sale and the return of about $7,300 in commission.
They claim their agent did little to market the flat to other buyers,
and was in a clear conflict of interest when he sold the unit to his
boss' wife.
In a testimony echoed by her husband, Mr Mike Parikh, Madam Sadiq
said there was no secret buyer in waiting when she bought the twobedroom
Keng Cheow Street apartment in mid-2007. Mr Parikh is a
senior group division director of ERA.
Madam Sadiq said that in early July last year, her husband told her
about The Riverside Piazza unit being marketed by his subordinate, Mr
Jeremy Ang.
She made an offer of $685,000 as her identity card number started
with '685'. She said: 'I know it sounds a bit crazy, but it's from my
IC number.'
The price was eventually agreed at $688,000. Madam Sadiq said she was
granted the right to buy the flat on July 5 last year, but the couple
disputed this date as the option was dated July 12.
Madam Sadiq said she then decided to try to sell the apartment as
property prices were then 'roaring'. Two days later, on July 7, the
unit was on the market again. This time, it sold for about $945,000.
'At the time, the market was bullish, and we decided to put up this
price. We happened to make a bit of a profit,' Madam Sadiq said.
Mr Parikh, 44, took the stand after his wife. He said the first sale
to his wife and her subsequent resale were separate transactions. He
said his subordinate, Mr Ang, called him up on July 5 to tell him
that the sale to Madam Sadiq was a 'done deal'.
The next day, Mr Parikh placed advertisements in The Straits Times
for July 7 and July 9. When there was no response, he changed the
text, adding 'en bloc potential' in a third ad on July 14.
He admitted that he had not actually heard of any plans to sell units
at The Riverside Piazza collectively. 'It's just a common term that
agents use because there were a lot of en blocs going on. The
possibility is always there,' he explained.
On the same day that he placed the third ad, an interested buyer
responded. Four days later, Madam Sadiq granted him an option to buy
at $945,000.
It was only later that Mr Yuen and Madam Wong found out about the
resale.
** About the case
MR YUEN Chow Hin and Madam Wong Wai Fan have sued property agency ERA
Realty Network for breach of contract and misrepresentation.
In July 2007, the couple, through ERA agent Jeremy Ang, sold their
apartment for $688,000.
Unknown to them, the buyer, Madam Natassha Sadiq, was the wife of Mr
Ang's boss. Soon after she was granted the right to buy the property,
Madam Sadiq flipped the flat for $945,000.
Mr Yuen and Madam Wong are now seeking from ERA the price difference
of $257,000 and the return of about $7,300 in commission.
They claim the agency did not try its best to find more offers and
allege that there was conflict of interest.
ERA says it is not liable for the actions of its agents, who are
independent contractors. In any case, says the agency, Mr Ang has not
breached its code of conduct.
Lawyers for both sides are to make closing arguments next Thursday.
Singapore Real Estate Property | East Coast Condominiums Apartments & Houses for Sale and Rent | Expat Relocation Agents | Singapore http://www.
ERA is staring at the abyss.
Conned into renting same house
Malaysian couple shell out $4,300
Japanese expat coughs up $6,000
Conman duped would-be tenants and agents by posing as property's manager
http://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?p=35383730
Conned into renting same house
Malaysian couple shell out $4,300
Japanese expat coughs up $6,000
Conman duped would-be tenants and agents by posing as property's manager
http://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?p=35383730
The judge himself amongst other things said it was fraud. A criminal case that is not prosecuted by the authorities can still be sued via civil courts.
As for your example. It very much depends on how the transaction occurred. In rapidly rising market genuine buyers have been immediately approached to resell their property by the same agent who sometimes handles late responses to adverts etc. You very well know that having dealth with properties and development. Wonder why you asked the question.
In this case conflict was very obvious and the fact that the boss placed the advert while the agent did not tells alot. Sadly if CPF had not been involved no one will be the wiser.
The Onus was placed on Era as they provided the operating umbrella under which all the offending parties were involved. I am sure ERA is not going to fork out a cent and will make the 2 clowns cought it up to survive in this industry. ERA knew exactly where their baseline was having remployed convicted and jailed agent for property fraud before.
Sadly we all know the number of Ah Soh Ah Peks that have been screwed by the lack of transparency. We also lack ombudsman and consumer lobbyist.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Jan 16, 2009
Conned into renting same house
Malaysian couple shell out $4,300
Japanese expat coughs up $6,000
Conman duped would-be tenants and agents by posing as property's manager
By Joyce Teo
A MALAYSIAN couple and a Japanese expatriate have fallen prey to a rental scam run by a conman who took $10,300 from them - then went into hiding.
Neither party realised they had paid him to lease the same terrace house in Serangoon Gardens. But in a twist of fate, they ran into each another there - and discovered his scam.
The man who allegedly made off with their money - his full name is Axley Alexander Ryan Shah and he calls himself Ryan - had no legal link to the property. He pretended to be the property's manager. It is not clear how he obtained the house keys.
The couple, who are permanent residents, and the Japanese woman have filed separate police reports. A police spokesman said on Monday that two reports of cheating are being investigated.
The property agency involved, ERA, said it is probing the case. Two of its agents were apparently duped by Ryan.
ERA Asia-Pacific associate director Eugene Lim said such scams surface occasionally and often involve a conman fraudulently renting out someone else's home.
'We train our agents to do due diligence to ascertain the property's ownership,' he said. 'If they are dealing with a representative, they need to verify his identity and make sure he has the authority to act on behalf of the owner.'
In this case, the agents believed Ryan when he said he was the property manager and when he signed off as property manager-cum-landlord - even though they had run an ownership search that showed he was not one of the owners.
The couple - Ms Elena Fernandez, 35, and her husband, who have lived in Singapore for two years - paid cash to lease the house last November after responding to an online advertisement by an ERA agent.
At the house, they were met by two ERA agents and Ryan, who had asked one of the agents for tenant referrals. He said he represented Sisedel, a firm that owns 11 properties in Singapore, including - he claimed - the house in question.
He asked for $2,500 a month but Ms Fernandez, a part-time announcer at Gold 90FM, bargained it down to $2,150.
She said: 'We were a bit surprised as the house was in good condition even though it was old. Other houses nearby were going for $2,400 or $2,500.'
Ryan signed off on the tenancy agreement representing Sisedel and collected a two-month deposit of $4,300 in cash - witnessed by the two agents.
Later, he gave them the key. At the house, they were shocked to find sealed boxes in a bedroom and leftover food in the fridge. Ryan did not turn up.
Then a cab pulled up and the Japanese woman, who declined to be named in this article, told them to their dismay that she had paid to rent the house from Feb 1.
The woman, who had recently arrived in Singapore, told The Straits Times: 'After Christmas, Ryan SMSed me to tell me he could not rent out the house because his agent had found someone else. He said he would refund the deposit, but after that, we could not contact him.'
She had paid him $6,000 - two months' deposit and advance rent. She went to the house to try to find him.
Ms Fernandez still has the key to the house. She said Ryan had sent her an SMS before disappearing, to apologise, saying greed had got the better of him.
The agents have since found her another place and paid the deposit for it.
The owners of 19 Coniston Grove are listed as Madam Tham Shook Han and Mr Lam Kah Han, according to data from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. They could not be reached for comment.
A company search showed that Sisedel was set up in April last year. Its shareholders and directors are Axley Alexander Ryan Shah and Tan Soon Kiat.
There is no official data on rental scams. At the Consumers Association of Singapore, the number of cases it handles involving rental disputes, including ones that involve misleading claims or misrepresentation, has grown, rising to 231 last year, from 177 in 2007 and 123 in 2006, said executive director Seah Seng Choon.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
dear bro may i know how to get the full report of what the High Court Jughe said today ... where can i buy the judgment report ? thanks bro
Buy for what when i have already provided the reasoning for free?
http://www.sammyboy.com/showpost.php?p=152181&postcount=21
Dun need to buy.
Just go to the Supreme Court website: http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/
Look under "Judgements"
Wait for a few days for the judgement of this case to be posted therein.
Many things in life are free.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
February 6, 2009 Friday
ERA told to return $257,000 to couple
Judge slams unethical agents who 'flip' properties for profit
By Selina Lum
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.
Timeline of events
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
WHO'S WHO:
... more
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.
... more
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.
[email protected]
ERA told to return $257,000 to couple
Judge slams unethical agents who 'flip' properties for profit
By Selina Lum
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.
Timeline of events
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
WHO'S WHO:
... more
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.
... more
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.
[email protected]
Similar threads
