RES Fined $15,000 and Suspended 9 Months for Breaches Including Forgery and Failing to Perform Required Customer Due Diligence

May 2025 - 4 min read

Under the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (CEPCC), estate agents (EAs) and real estate salespersons (RESs) are required to conduct estate agency work with due diligence and care. They must also not do anything that may bring discredit or disrepute to the estate agency industry. 

In addition, EAs and RESs play a crucial role in helping to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Under the Estate Agents Act 2010 (EAA) and the Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Regulations 2021 (PMLFT Regulations), RESs must perform customer due diligence (CDD) measures on their clients and report any suspicious transaction or activities to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) in the Singapore Police Force.

In this case study, we look at the actions of Tay Jin Yao, Johansson (‘Tay’), an RES registered with PropNex Realty Pte Ltd then, who committed a series of actions that ultimately led to him being charged with several breaches of the CEPCC, the EAA, and the PMLFT Regulations. 

These include miscalculating the estimated cash proceeds in the sale of his clients’ Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, failing to perform the required CDD measures on his clients and forging their signatures on their Customer’s Particulars Forms.  

Case background

 A former couple engaged Tay to market their HDB flat for sale. 

Both the ex-wife (‘Ms Y’) and her ex-husband (‘Mr X’) were expecting cash proceeds from the sale - Ms Y wanted to buy a smaller flat using the cash proceeds while Mr X was unemployed and in debt.

This was made known to Tay when he was engaged to be their RES. 

Miscalculated estimated cash proceeds from sale of HDB flat

Ms Y asked Tay to calculate the estimated cash proceeds if the HDB flat was sold at $630,000.

Relying only on a screenshot of Ms Y’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) mobile application showing the amount of CPF monies used by the former couple for the purchase of the flat, Tay wrongly assumed that this amount included the accrued interest, legal fees and stamp fees, and that it would represent the total amount refundable to their CPF accounts.

However, this was not the case.

He then wrongly informed Ms Y about the amount of cash proceeds that the former couple would receive. At no point did Tay check Mr X’s CPF account details to confirm the correct amount to be refunded, nor did he verify his assumption with the CPF Board.

Forged client’s signature

Tay secured a buyer who exercised the Option to Purchase (OTP) for the HDB flat. Under the PMLFT Regulations, Tay was required to perform CDD measures on his clients, which included filling out the Customer’s Particulars Forms with the necessary information about his clients and obtaining their written acknowledgments that the information recorded was accurate.

Instead, Tay filled out the Customer’s Particulars Forms on their behalf without their consent or knowledge, and forged Ms Y’s signature.

Further breaches involving the Customer’s Particulars Form and estate agency agreement

As Tay had neglected to obtain his clients’ written acknowledgements that the information in the Customer’s Particulars Forms was accurate, this led to incorrect information about Ms Y’s occupation in her Customer’s Particulars Form.

Tay further compounded the error by allowing Ms Y to sign the estate agency agreement on Mr X’s behalf even though he did not obtain any documentation to verify that Ms Y had the authority to do so.

Wrongdoings uncovered

Ms Y and Mr X were informed by their conveyancing lawyers only after the OTP was exercised that they would not receive any cash proceeds from the sale; instead, they were required to pay a sum of $5,353.82 in cash, as refund to their CPF accounts and to cover the legal fees of their conveyancing lawyers.

To compensate for his error, Tay waived his commission and paid the conveyancing fees. The remaining balance of $3,109.50 was paid by Ms Y to the CPF Board. Consequently, Ms Y did not go ahead with her plan to purchase a smaller flat given the unexpected shortfall of cash proceeds.

Convicted of three charges by a CEA Disciplinary Committee

For his actions, Tay pleaded guilty and was convicted of three charges, with five other charges taken into consideration in sentencing. Tay was sentenced to a total fine of $15,000 and a 9-month suspension by a CEA Disciplinary Committee for the following disciplinary breaches:

1. Breach of Paragraph 5(1) of the CEPCC for failing to conduct his business and work with due diligence and care, by miscalculating the estimated cash proceeds for the sale of the flat;

2. Breach of Paragraph 7(1) read with 7(2)(a) of the CEPCC for acting in a manner that may bring discredit or disrepute to the estate agency trade or industry, by fraudulently or dishonestly forging Ms Y’s signature on her Customer’s Particulars Form; and

3. Breach of Section 44B(2)(a) of the EAA read with Regulations 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(c)(i) of the PMLFT Regulations, for failing to perform the prescribed customer due diligence measures, by failing to obtain Ms Y’s written acknowledgement that the information in her Customer’s Particulars Form was correct, and failing to obtain documentary evidence to verify whether Ms Y was authorised to act on behalf of Mr X and sign the estate agency agreement on Mr X’s behalf. 

The remaining five charges taken into consideration for sentencing were:

• Breach of paragraph 7(1) read with paragraph 7(2)(a) of the CEPCC for acting in a manner that may bring discredit or disrepute to the estate agency trade or industry, when Tay dishonestly suggested to Ms Y that she could get a fake buyer to request for a valuation of the HDB flat from HDB.

• Breach of paragraph 4(1) read with paragraph 4(2)(e) of the CEPCC for failing to comply with the applicable laws, regulations, rules and procedures that apply to transactions involving HDB flats, when Tay granted the OTP to the buyers within the 7-day cooling off period upon the registration of an Intent to Sell, and post-dated the OTP to give a false appearance of compliance.

• Breach of paragraph 8(4) of the CEPCC when Tay failed to give a copy of the estate agency agreement to Ms Y immediately or as soon as possible after she had signed it.

• Breach of paragraph 7(1) read with 7(2)(a) of the CEPCC for acting in a manner that may bring discredit or disrepute to the estate agency trade or industry, when Tay fraudulently or dishonestly forged Mr X’s signature on his Customer’s Particulars Form.

• Breach of Section 44B(2)(a) of the Estate Agents Act read with Regulations 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the PMLFT Regulations for failing to perform the prescribed customer due diligence measures, when Tay failed to obtain Mr X’s written acknowledgement that the information on his Customer’s Particulars Form was accurate, and also failed to verify Mr X’s identity using reliable and independent sources.