Singapore Property Agent Faked an S$11 Million Sale to Unlock S$91,653 — Then Another Agent Was Left With the Bill

SINGAPORE — A bankrupt former property agent admitted to fabricating property transactions and forging documents to obtain advance commissions, in a scheme that prosecutors say exploited the trust of fellow real estate agents and ultimately left them facing tens of thousands of dollars in repayment obligations.

Cheong En Kiong, 51, pleaded guilty on Tuesday, September 8, to four charges involving cheating, forgery and receiving benefits from criminal conduct. Other charges will be taken into consideration when he is sentenced in October, according to court proceedings reported by CNA.

The case is striking not merely because fictitious property transactions were allegedly created on paper, but because legitimate commission-advance mechanisms were used to turn those documents into real cash — while other agents became financially exposed when the supposed sales failed to produce any actual commission.

An S$11 Million Property That Wasn't Really Being Sold

The first major transaction detailed in court involved a property at Prudential Tower, 30 Cecil Street, valued at around S$11 million.

In June 2022, Cheong approached a 38-year-old property agent whom he had known for about a decade and asked her to participate as a co-broker. According to the prosecution's account, he selected the high-value property because the transaction could generate a larger advance commission.

The agent, identified in court documents only as A1, was recovering from accident injuries and had never handled a transaction of that scale. She was promised S$5,000 for participating.

What she did not know was that key documents underpinning the deal had been fabricated.

Cheong admitted forging signatures on documents including an Option to Purchase and seller's commission agreement, which were subsequently used when an advance commission was sought through LytePay.

LytePay eventually disbursed S$91,653 to A1. After keeping her agreed portion, she transferred approximately S$83,500 to Cheong, who used the money to repay debts.

But there was a fundamental problem: the transaction underlying that commission was not genuine.

Six Months Later, the Deal Unravelled

ERA discovered the problem about six months later after the expected commission from the purported buyer failed to arrive.

An internal investigation uncovered Cheong's actions and ERA issued him a warning. The agency then required Cheong and A1 to repay the full S$91,653 advance.

Cheong has repaid only around S$10,000 to S$12,000, according to the prosecution.

That left A1 carrying most of the outstanding liability. LytePay also issued her a statutory demand and deducted commissions from other legitimate property transactions to offset what was owed, CNA reported.

That consequence is central to why prosecutors are seeking a substantial jail term: the financial damage did not simply disappear when the fictional transaction was discovered. It shifted onto someone whom the prosecution says Cheong had persuaded to trust him.

Then It Happened Again

Despite the ERA warning, the court heard that Cheong later became involved in further fabricated deals.

In October 2025, he approached a former customer, then 69, who owned commercial property at Lucky Plaza. He falsely claimed there was a buyer for the unit and obtained the owner's signatures on blank documents, according to the prosecution's statement of facts.

Cheong then recruited another friend — a 63-year-old OrangeTee & Tie property agent — to participate in what the friend believed was a genuine co-broking transaction.

Documents were again forged.

LytePay subsequently advanced S$7,955 to the friend, who passed S$4,700 to Cheong.

The prosecution said Cheong had also persuaded the same agent to participate in another purported Prudential Tower transaction in July 2025.

That transaction eventually raised alarms when OrangeTee sought approximately S$135,300 in agency fees from the supposed seller. A company director reportedly replied that the property had never been sold.

OrangeTee's investigation then uncovered the two questionable transactions.

The consequences were severe for Cheong's friend: OrangeTee dismissed him and required him to bear approximately S$86,000 in advance commissions arising from the deals, according to the court account. Police reports were filed in October 2025.

Why Advance Commissions Exist in the First Place

The alleged exploitation of commission advances is important because early-payment services address a genuine cash-flow problem in Singapore's property industry.

EdgeProp previously reported that property agents can wait months to receive commissions after closing transactions. LytePay was developed partly to bridge that gap by advancing money against commission receivables before the eventual payment arrives. ERA was among the early agencies to work with the platform.

LytePay currently describes the process similarly: after a deal closes, an eligible agent can request an advance; when the agency subsequently receives the actual commission, the advanced amount is automatically repaid to LytePay.

That system depends on one critical assumption: there is a legitimate underlying property transaction and genuine commission receivable.

The court case shows what can happen when documents purporting to establish that underlying transaction are false.

Singapore Agents Can Wait Months for Their Money

The wider cash-flow pressures behind commission advances are not theoretical.

The Straits Times reported in August that property agents can face unpredictable income, substantial marketing expenses and lengthy waits for commission payments. It cited ERA data showing average annual income of S$87,300 in 2025 among active agents who had completed at least three transactions during the specified 2023-2025 period.

This helps explain why commission-advance products have become useful to agents: a closed transaction does not necessarily mean immediate cash in the bank.

It also explains why falsifying the transaction behind an advance can create losses far beyond the person who initially receives the money.

The Bankruptcy Detail Raises a Separate Regulatory Question

Cheong had been an undischarged bankrupt since 2019, according to the court proceedings. Prosecutors said he had obligations to creditors and also owed money to friends and unlicensed moneylenders.

That detail matters because Singapore's Estate Agents Act specifically addresses bankruptcy.

CEA's current guidance states that an undischarged bankrupt is presumed not to satisfy the industry's "fit and proper" criterion unless the council determines otherwise. The same framework covers convictions involving dishonesty or fraud.

The law therefore does not establish that bankruptcy automatically and irreversibly prohibits someone from working as a salesperson; CEA retains discretion in determining whether an individual is fit and proper. Public reporting on Cheong's case so far does not explain what determination, if any, was made concerning his bankruptcy during his earlier registration.

CNA reported that he is no longer listed on CEA's public register. CEA separately advises consumers that anyone carrying out estate agency work in Singapore must have valid registration through a licensed property agency.

That regulatory angle may become one of the most important questions surrounding the case beyond sentencing.

Singapore Is Already Tightening Property-Agent Standards

The prosecution also arrives as Singapore moves toward tougher professional requirements for property agents.

The Business Times reported in July that agents will have to complete at least three transactions within three years or pass a refresher examination to remain registered under upcoming reforms aimed at improving professional standards and transparency. Authorities are also considering measures addressing inaccurate, fake or unauthorised property listings and greater commission transparency.

As of July 1, Singapore had 38,162 registered property agents and 1,018 property agencies, according to CEA figures cited by the Business Times.

The Cheong case involves alleged conduct very different from an inaccurate advertisement. But it underlines the broader regulatory problem: property transactions rely heavily on authentic documents, verified counterparties and trust among agents, agencies, clients and financial-service providers.

Prosecutors Want Up to 28 Months' Jail

Cheong has been remanded since early April 2026.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Kelly Ng asked the court for 24½ to 28 months' imprisonment, arguing that Cheong took advantage of friends who trusted him and left them with significant financial obligations.

His defence lawyer, Riko Isaac, sought a lower sentence of 18½ to 21½ months, pointing to Cheong's early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities.

The case has been adjourned to October for sentencing.

Cheating and forgery for the purpose of cheating can each attract imprisonment of up to 10 years as well as a fine. The offence involving benefits from criminal conduct can likewise carry up to 10 years' imprisonment and substantial financial penalties, depending on the applicable charge.

The Bigger Story Is Who Was Left Paying

The most extraordinary part of this case may ultimately not be the forged paperwork or even the size of the fictitious transactions.

It is what happened after the money was released.

One fellow agent was left responsible for most of an S$91,653 advance. Another was made to bear roughly S$86,000 arising from two transactions, while prosecutors say Cheong has made no restitution to OrangeTee, the second agent or LytePay.

The commissions were advanced quickly.

The supposed deals eventually collapsed.

But the debts were very real.

And when Cheong returns to court in October, the judge will decide how heavily that human and financial fallout should weigh in his sentence.

WWC ONE MEDIA M.J.E