News

Property agent let unregistered agent he was mentoring handle S$900,000 condo unit purchase

SINGAPORE: A real estate agent with several juniors under his guidance helped an unregistered agent he was mentoring handle a S$900,000 (US$688,000) purchase of a condominium unit.

An unregistered salesperson cannot facilitate property transactions under the Estate Agents Act.

When the agent for the sellers of the unit at Symphony Suites realised the mentee was not registered, she lodged a complaint to the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), which regulates the real estate agency industry.

The mentor, 32-year-old Singaporean Spencer Ng Boxiong, was fined S$8,000 by a court on Monday (Aug 19) for one count of abetting a property purchase by an unregistered real estate agent under the Estate Agents Act.

The man he was mentoring, 33-year-old Singaporean Benjamin Chang Yongxie, was fined S$21,600 for his role on Tuesday. He faced more charges than Ng.

THE CASE

According to court documents, Ng knew Chang from about 2020. Around April 2021, Chang told Ng that he had signed up for a real estate salesperson course and was preparing to sit for CEA’s examination.

Chang intended to join Ng’s team of agents at ERA Realty Network once he was registered. He told Ng in September 2021 that he had passed the exam.

In October that year, Chang began messaging Ng to seek advice on encounters he had with friends or acquaintances who were looking to buy or sell properties.

Despite knowing that he was yet to be registered as a salesperson, Ng gave guidance and advice to Chang by answering his queries and guiding him through the steps needed to facilitate a property purchase.

On Oct 15, Chang asked Ng if he could post on Instagram that he was at a friend’s residence “for viewing”, even though he had not obtained his licence yet.

Ng responded with: “Yes don’t worry” and “Just Insta.”

Around Oct 16, Chang told Ng that his friends had asked for help to buy a condominium unit.

Ng encouraged Chang by saying it would be a “win-win” situation if Chang represented his two friends.

Since Chang would be co-broking and sharing the commission with the seller’s agent, the two friends would not need to pay Chang.

Chang acknowledged this advice and said he would “firm it up” with his buyer friends.

He also told Ng that he was trying to convince his friends to introduce him to another friend who wanted to buy a property at the same condominium in Yishun. Ng encouraged him to try. 

Chang later told Ng he would be representing his two friends and their friend in their separate purchases. Ng responded with an affirmation. 

Ng continued to coach Chang on how to accompany a prospective client, telling him to close both purchases as soon as possible and that it was “easy five (figure)” commission.

He also taught Chang to “just stand there” and follow his third buyer while the seller’s agent conducted the viewing. 

Ng asked Chang on Oct 16, 2021, if he had already obtained his registration. Chang told him no.

Chang had contacted an agent from PropNex Realty named in court papers only as Irene, who represented the sellers of the condo unit in Symphony Suites.

Chang said he was “Benjamin from ERA” and had “buyers who are interested in this unit”.

His third client had contacted Irene separately and said she was represented by an agent named “Ben”, who was Chang. Irene did not know that the three buyers and Chang knew each other.

On Oct 17, after Chang had taken his two friends to view different properties, he sent Ng a photo of himself and his friends posing with a blank copy of an exclusive estate agency agreement.

He asked Ng if the photo could be posted on social media, and Chang encouraged him to do so.

Eventually, Chang contacted Irene to convey his two friends’ offer of S$890,000 for the condo unit, after getting Ng to check through the offer.

Chang later spoke to Irene, who agreed to share her commission of 2 per cent of the property’s selling price with Chang equally.

Ng encouraged Chang, saying: “Got 1 per cent is good!!”, “good money” and “push for the 5 figure!”

He also told Chang that he would need only another S$1,100 commission to reach his five-figure target.

Eventually, Chang represented his two friends to buy the condo unit for S$900,000.

Ng congratulated him and wished him good luck, reminding him that “the important thing was earning money and learning something” from facilitating the transaction.

FINALISING THE TRANSACTION

On Oct 27, 2021, Chang and Ng met Irene to finalise the transaction. Chang introduced Ng to Irene as his partner and they filled out paperwork.

Chang and Ng had a common understanding that any transactions Chang handled would be “tagged” under Ng’s name as Chang was yet to be registered.

After Irene signed on the co-broke agreement, Ng signed off as the “purchaser’s salesperson for and on behalf of ERA”, even though he had never met the buyers.

The purchase of the property was completed and Chang obtained his registration on Nov 3, 2021.

Around that time, ERA issued an invoice to PropNex for S$9,630 – 1 per cent of the purchase price plus GST – for Ng’s supposed facilitation of the purchase.

Ng was to receive only 90 cents in commission, with the rest going to Chang.

Around Nov 16, while submitting transaction documents to PropNex, Irene realised that the agreement did not contain Chang’s particulars. 

She texted Chang and said the particulars in the agreement were not legible.

Chang replied that the details were Ng’s, which prompted Irene to look up Chang’s name in CEA’s public register. She realised that Chang had facilitated a transaction before being registered as a real estate agent.

Irene lodged a complaint with CEA in March 2022, and CEA began investigating the case.

ERA issued a credit note to PropNex in August 2023 as a refund of the commission PropNex had paid to ERA. Chang and Ng had initiated the refund on the grounds of a commission dispute.

UNIQUE CASE WITH OVERLY EAGER MENTOR: LAWYERS

Prosecutors sought a fine of S$9,000 to S$10,000 for Ng.

Ng’s lawyers, Mr Anthony Wong and Mr Dominic Kwok from Lee & Lee, sought a fine of S$5,000 instead.

They said this was a “unique case” where Ng had offended not out of self-interest or personal gain but because he was overly eager to see the person he was mentoring get a good start in his new career.

“The accused’s chief fault lay in failing to respect the sanctity of the RES registration system amidst his zealousness to inspire and show the ropes to Chang, notwithstanding that Chang appeared to be obtaining his RES registration imminently (and did get his registration one week after the period of the offence),” said the lawyers.

They said Ng has been with ERA Realty Network since 2018 and was promoted to a team leader with more than 10 agents joining his team when Chang first told Ng about passing his exam.

The lawyers said Ng is now leading a team of 60 real estate agents and this was Ng’s first brush with the law, with the court proceedings being “highly distressing” for him.

According to a check on CEA’s public register, both Ng and Chang are still registered as real estate agents for ERA Realty Network.

Both men paid their fines in full.

The penalty for abetting an unregistered real estate salesperson as acting in a property transaction is a jail term of up to 12 months, a fine of up to S$25,000, or both.

Source: CNA

Donate to Breeze of Joy Foundation

Global NewsX

Global NewsX is a news sharing website that offers a wide range of categories, from politics and business to entertainment and sports. With its easy-to-navigate interface, users can quickly find the news they are looking for and stay up-to-date on the latest global events. Whether you're interested in breaking news, in-depth analysis, or just want to stay informed, Global NewsX has got you covered.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
Home
Videos
Back
Account