A man who ran up debt from purchasing flower garlands, a traditional gesture of admiration and support, for female singers at ‘Diao Hua’ clubs, a popular form of entertainment in Singapore, has been sentenced to 12 weeks in jail. Liu Kuei Liang, known as Kent, was found guilty of two charges of falsifying sales and purchase agreements.
According to a judgment made available on Wednesday (March 27), Liu was in debt around August 2022 after buying flower “hua” garlands to gift to singers at clubs. Liu sold two of his mother’s cars, a Rolls Royce Dawn 6.6 V12 and a Mini Cooper SE, to pay off his debts.
On August 1, 2022, Liu contacted a car dealer, Autoart Singapore representative, Mr. Low Lye Seng, and expressed his intention to sell his mother’s two cars. The pair agreed on the terms of the sales: the Rolls Royce would be sold for S$700,000 (US$519,400), while the Mini Cooper would be sold for S$130,000. Autoart then prepared the sales and purchase agreements and sent them via WhatsApp to Liu.
However, Liu lied to Mr Low, claiming that his mother was out of town in Taiwan and that he would obtain her signature upon her return. He then went on to forge his mother’s signatures on the documents, a process that involves creating a false representation of her consent, before sending them back to Mr. Low via WhatsApp. Liu even went as far as to give Mr. Low a phone number belonging to a Taiwan-based friend and asked him to answer calls and confirm the sale of the cars, despite the fact that the number did not belong to his mother.
When Autoart called the number, the individual on the other end seemed to have authorized the sale of the two cars, which led Autoart to believe that Liu’s mother had authorized them. Mr Low then authorized deposits of S$100,000 for the Rolls Royce and S$50,000 for the Mini Cooper, which he sent to Liu via PayNow.
However, Liu’s mother appeared to have lodged a police report on August 16, 2022, stating that she believed her son had forged her signatures to sell her cars without her consent. The prosecution sought to put Liu away for four to six months in jail due to the high amounts involved in the case, as well as the precise planning and premeditation that had gone into it.
During the trial, defense lawyer Vijai Dharamdas Parwani argued that Liu’s mother had permitted him to use the cars as and when he required them. He also claimed that Liu had only intended to have temporary financing by selling the cars in desperation. The two vehicles were eventually returned to Liu’s mother in exchange for a refund of the S$150,000 deposit made for them.
Despite the mother’s willingness to forgive her son and not seek a refund, the judge found that the restitution had been made by Liu’s mother and not by himself.
“As the prosecution stated: (If) someone else pays for your crime, how can we say that you are remorseful?”
Liu could have been jailed for up to four years, fined, or both for each count of forgery on documents.
