Property agent fined for failing to report suspicious transaction after buyer handed over piles of cash in plastic bag

• Charles Tan Chun Peng issued a S$44,300 personal cheque as a deposit to pay for a condominium unit on behalf of a buyer
• He received the deposit from the buyer in cash, most of which had been placed in a plastic bag
• The buyer said he did not have a bank account
• After learning that the buyer was an undischarged bankrupt and allegedly ran illegal gambling dens, he rescinded the sale
• However, Tan failed to report the suspicious transaction to the authorities

SINGAPORE — A real estate agent was fined S$12,000 on Wednesday (Dec 1) for failing to lodge a suspicious transaction report after an undischarged bankrupt used cash to try to buy a condominium unit in Upper Serangoon five years ago.

PropNex Realty agent Charles Tan Chun Peng failed to make a report even after learning that the buyer, who said he had no bank account, was accused of using proceeds from criminal activities to pay for the home.

Facing his own financial difficulties and determined to earn a commission, Tan agreed to issue a cheque on the buyer’s behalf to pay the S$44,300 booking fee after collecting the sum in cash, most of which he carried away in a red plastic bag.

Tan, now 42, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to one count of not making a suspicious transaction report and another of holding money on behalf of the condominium developer. A third similar charge was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Appearing unapologetic over his actions, Tan began his mitigation plea on Wednesday by saying that he was “set up” by the buyer and that his employer had told him there was no need to make such a report.

“From my perspective, I was being set up. I’m a victim,” he said, adding that the buyer had only said that he did not own a bank account while they were at the showflat.

“I did not have a lot of time to react. I only could say 'yes' or say 'no'. If I said 'no', then he would go find somebody else.”

WHAT HAPPENED

In October 2016, Tan arranged to meet the buyer, Mr Ho Ah Leng, at the uncompleted condominium’s showflat.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Kang Jia Hui said that the buyer’s daughter, Ms Hannah Ho, had been in contact with Tan and told him that her family was unable to get a loan but could pay in cash.

After viewing the showflat, Mr Ho expressed interest in buying a unit but told Tan that he did not have a bank account. The developer was not accepting any cash payments.

Mr Ho then asked Tan if he could issue a cheque for the option to purchase on his behalf.

DPP Kang said that Tan had “initially declined but eventually relented so as to secure the sale and his commission”.

Tan did not ask why no one in Mr Ho’s family had a bank account and he did not made any checks on Mr Ho’s occupation and source of funds.

Mr Ho handed Tan S$11,000 in cash that he had carried with him. The next day, Tan went to Mr Ho’s home to collect S$32,300 in cash stacked on a table and that Mr Ho later placed in a red plastic bag.

In a statement in October, the police said that Tan then sent a photo of the plastic bag filled with cash to a colleague.

“The photograph was accompanied with Chinese words that literally mean ‘cannot see the light’, but are colloquially used to mean ‘shady’,” the police said then.

Tan deposited the sum into a joint bank account that he had with his wife and issued a cheque to the developer on Mr Ho’s behalf, before collecting the remaining S$1,000 from Mr Ho’s son a day or two later.

A few days later, Mr Ho's ex-wife called Tan to tell him that Mr Ho was an undischarged bankrupt, a fact Tan confirmed after doing his own search.

She also told him that Mr Ho runs illegal gambling dens and had been in jail several times.

During investigations, Tan admitted that he found it suspicious that Mr Ho had such a large sum of cash when he was an undischarged bankrupt. He also admitted that he had suspected what Mr Ho’s ex-wife said could be true.

Despite this, he did not report the suspicious transaction but aborted the sale of the unit.

By doing so, the sum of money — which could have been subject to further investigations by the authorities — was returned to Mr Ho.

Court documents did not state whether any investigations were launched into the source of Mr Ho’s funds.

In December that year, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) received a complaint that an option to purchase for an uncompleted condominium had been rescinded because a buyer was an undischarged bankrupt and the co-buyer, Mr Ho’s son, was below 21 years old.

‘LITTLE REMORSE’

Tan told the court on Wednesday that he had asked his employers whether he should make the suspicious transaction report.

His employer, Tan said, told him there was no need. After all, the sale had been aborted so there was no transaction to make.

“I did wrong, I did handle a cash transaction. I admit that fact.”

To that, DPP Kang argued that a misinterpretation of the law was not a valid defence.

As a registered property agent, Tan must have learnt the requirements to report suspicious transactions in order to pass the required tests, she added.

In response to Tan’s claims that he was the victim in this case, DPP Kang said: “He has expressed very little remorse. His first response was to point fingers to the buyer for setting him up.”

CEA's Prosecuting Officer Marian Lee said that Tan had shown a “blatant disregard for the law” but noted that unlike similar cases in the past, Tan had not misappropriated the money he received.

In a statement on Wednesday, CEA stressed that property agents are prohibited from handling money for any property transaction in Singapore.

“This regulation is to protect consumers’ interests. If agencies or agents handle transaction monies, they may compromise the integrity of the transaction and put their clients at risk, especially if they misappropriate the money or convert the money for their own use.”

In response to TODAY’s queries, CEA said that the statutory board will assess Tan’s “fitness and propriety” to continue as a property agent and take necessary action, which could include revoking his registration as a salesperson.

For holding money on behalf of another party during a property transaction, Tan could have been jailed for up to six months or fined up to S$10,000, or both.

For failing to lodge a suspicious transaction report, he could have been fined up to S$20,000.