Skip to main content
A Singapore Government Agency Website How to identify
Official website links end with .gov.sg
Secure websites use HTTPS
Look for a lock () or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Council for Estate Agencies
Case Studies

RES Given Financial Penalty of $28,000 and Suspended for 6 Months for Advertisement-related Infringements of the CEPCC

5 October 2026

A property agent had to face a second set of disciplinary proceedings for continuing to disregard CEA’s regulations in relation to the marketing of properties.

Main image for CEAnergy case study

This case study covers the second set of disciplinary proceedings against a real estate salesperson (RES) – the industry term for property agents – who had continued to commit advertisement-related breaches of the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (CEPCC), despite being previously convicted by a CEA Disciplinary Committee (DC) on similar charges.

As shared in an earlier CEAnergy article, (opens in new tab) Abel Ang Pei Xiong (‘Ang’), an RES who was registered with ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd (‘ERA’) at that time, was convicted by a DC for breaches of the CEPCC related to his online advertisements and given a total financial penalty of $14,000 and suspended for 5 months with effect from October 2023.

He had committed 3 breaches of Paragraph 12(4)(a) of the CEPCC, as he had stated prices in his advertisements for new property developments which were significantly lower than the prevailing prices provided by the developers of the projects.

Paragraph 12(4)(a) of the CEPCC states:

“Estate agents and salespersons must also comply with the following requirements in respect of any form of advertising including name, calling or any other cards: 
(a) they must not cause or allow to be made any advertisement that contains any offer, proposal, statement, representation, claim or information that is inaccurate, false or misleading; ...”

But the story did not end there.

In 2025, RES Ang faced a second set of disciplinary proceedings for continuing to disregard CEA’s regulations in relation to the marketing of properties, resulting in various further advertisement-related breaches of the CEPCC.

Inaccurate pricing in advertisements for Property A

ERA was appointed as the marketing agent for two uncompleted development projects, Property A and Property B. Hence, its RESs, including RES Ang, were allowed to advertise units in these developments for sale.

In April 2023, RES Ang reposted three online advertisements for three types of units in Property A that contained prices that were lower than the developer’s asking prices.

He had posted the advertisements after taking reference from listings posted by other RESs, and did not check with his EA or the developer to ensure that the correct prices were reflected in the advertisements before posting them.

By stating a lower price than the developer’s prices in these advertisements, RES Ang had caused advertisements to be made which contained a claim or information that was inaccurate and/ or misleading, in breach of Paragraph 12(4)(a) of the CEPCC.

Misleading advertisements for Property B

RES Ang had also posted two other advertisements on an online property portal for the sale of two different types of units in Property B from April to May 2024.

Both advertisements stated that the units advertised were sold directly by the developer, and included the following statements:

  • "Highest Discounts Guaranteed"

  • “Best Price Guaranteed"

  • "Extra VIP e-Discounts"

  • "Enjoy Max e-Discounts"

  • “VVIP Ownership"

  • "Tailored to ALL YOUR REQUIREMENTS"

These statements were misleading, as the developer did not offer any further discounts stated in the advertisements nor offer different sale prices or discount rates to RESs from different EAs.

Additionally, contrary to RES Ang’s advertisements, there was no such thing as “VVIP Ownership” or customisation of units offered by the developer.

RES Ang’s advertisements were again in breach of Paragraph 12(4)(a) of the CEPCC as it contained claims which were inaccurate and/ or misleading.

Inaccurate information in advertisement for Property C

In April 2024, RES Ang posted an advertisement for a unit in Property C that the owner had wanted to rent when it was completed. Property C was at that time still an uncompleted development and the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) was expected to be obtained by the developer a few months later in Aug 2024.

However, RES Ang indicated in his advertisement that the unit was ‘Ready to Move’, meaning ready to move in, even though the property was still uncompleted. This  advertisement  contained a claim or information that was inaccurate and/ or misleading, in breach of Paragraph 12(4)(a) of the CEPCC.

Charged Again

RES Ang was subsequently referred to a DC again to face another 12 charges in total. He pleaded guilty to six charges, with six more charges taken into consideration.

In October 2025, the DC imposed a total financial penalty of $28,000 and a suspension of 6 months on RES Ang. 


Industry Perspective

By Alicia Chua
Assistant Honorary Secretary, Singapore Institute of Estate Agents (SIEA) (opens in new tab)

This case is a clear reminder that accurate advertising is integral to our professional responsibility, and lapses can have serious consequences. The RES involved was fined and suspended for three core breaches: posting prices not verified with the developer or appointed agency, using marketing phrases such as “Highest Discounts Guaranteed” and “VVIP Ownership” that could not be substantiated, and describing a unit as “Ready to Move” even though the project had not yet obtained TOP. These actions were deemed deliberate, not accidental, and they undermine consumer trust and the credibility of the entire real estate industry.

For practising RESs, the key takeaway is to be mindful and responsible in what we advertise. Verifying prices through official sources, avoiding absolute claims, and ensuring property details are accurate help us maintain trust and uphold the standards expected of our profession.

Advertising does not need to be exaggerated to be effective — being factual, transparent, and consistent keeps our reputation strong while safeguarding the interests of both clients and ourselves.

Perspective from ERA

By Nicholas Poa
Executive Vice President, Legal and Compliance, ERA

ERA has strengthened its compliance and supervisory structures to uphold professional standards and better support its RESs.

ERA has put in place a framework to prevent similar breaches by its RESs. The framework centers on education, guidance, and proportionate accountability. When an RES breaches a regulatory requirement, the RES receives targeted compliance refresher training or structured coaching from their supervisor and/ or the KEO. The aim is to not only correct the immediate issue but also to ensure the RES comprehends what went wrong, is prepared to meet the standards in the future, and has support to avoid repeating the same mistake.

The framework acknowledges that breaches vary in seriousness. For severe misconduct or repeated non-compliance despite previous training, guidance, and intervention, ERA may impose stricter internal actions, such as internal suspension or, if needed, ending the associate relationship. This approach ensures ERA's response matches the severity and context of each case.

ERA maintains that fostering a robust compliance culture is key to safeguarding and backing its RESs. Many professional RESs dedicate considerable effort to developing their businesses, reputation, and client connections. Their professional integrity should not be jeopardised by isolated or recurring misconduct by others.

Through a blend of training, supervision, and fair accountability, ERA aims to safeguard clients, enhance consumer trust, and foster a space where responsible, professional RESs can develop long-term careers.


(Source photo by  Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash)

Information accurate as at 5 Oct 2026