Latest news with #PropNex
AsiaOne
4 days ago
- Business
- AsiaOne
'We are just the middlemen': How property agents grapple with landlords' discriminatory preferences, Singapore News
Over the past four years, Yue Kaixin regularly advises landlords on how to maximise their rental income. But the last thing the property agent from ERA Singapore would do is go against their choice of tenants — even when some insist, "No Indians". "I still had to obey them," Yue said. "I can't tell them what to do. If not, do you think I'll still have a business?" Yue is among several property agents in Singapore who told AsiaOne they are reluctant to confront landlords who refuse to rent to tenants from minority races. Other agents, on the other hand, have to grapple with landlords who show prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community. One property agent, who has worked in real estate for over a decade, recalled feeling awkward early in his career when landlords made it clear they did not want to rent to Indians. Some of these preferences stem from stereotypes that Indian tenants, both Singaporeans and expats, have a nonchalant attitude towards maintaining the property and they cook food with strong smells. The PropNex agent, who declined to be named, said that he feels conflicted at times — between doing his job and doing what is morally right — but has never pushed back against landlords with such requests. "Some might think it's racist, but there a thin line between racism and preferences," he said. "We are at the end of the day, just the middlemen. The neutral party. We neither condone nor accept such behaviours." It's not just about race But bias in the rental market extends beyond race, William Tan, a property agent from Singapore Realtors Inc, said. He recalled an incident last year when a landlord accepted an offer, before withdrawing the next day after finding out that the identity of the tenants. "They've already put in the deposit, but during the process of doing the paperwork, they had to present their passports," he said. "That was when the landlord started questioning on how come the tenants are two males… so that's when I told them they are actually gay parents with two biological kids." As a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community, Tan said the incident conflicted with his values. 'We're not powerful enough to stop rental discrimination,' he said. 'All we can do is stay professional and follow guidelines from the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA).' 'Not outright discrimination' To Yue, landlords who refuse to rent to someone who is "Indian or PRC [People's Republic of China]" are not necessarily racist. He argued that some of them may have had prior negative experiences with tenants from these groups. But he urged landlords against dismissing potential tenants based on stereotypes, saying that it does not make business sense. The property agent recalled that when he and his wife first put their home up for rent, they initially preferred only Chinese or Western tenants. Then came an enquiry from an Indian family, which Yue said: "I discussed with my wife on whether we should ask them to come for house viewing or just say, 'sorry' and give an excuse [to reject them]. "But we thought it's better to give everyone a fair chance… it turns out they were really good tenants." Heikal Shafrudin, co-founder of real estate agency Herohomes, said that it is more nuanced for landlords renting out their rooms in their homes. For such instances, preferences around age and gender do show up since it is akin to "finding a housemate". "Sometimes, it is not outright discrimination, but more about lifestyle fit or perceived safety," Shafrudin said. [[nid:682399]] What does the law say? A 2022 survey of more than 2,000 Singapore residents by CNA and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) found that over 90 per cent said they would rent a property they own to a Singaporean Chinese. In contrast, only 62 per cent of those surveyed said they would accept Singaporean Malay tenants in a property they own, and Singaporean Indian tenant at 57 per cent. The rights of all Singaporeans are protected under law, with Article 12 of the Constitution saying: "There shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law… or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment." The Ministry of National Development, however, maintained that rental decisions are ultimately private agreements between property owners and tenants. "Similar to how a tenant has the freedom to choose his accommodation, a landlord has the right to decide whom he would like to rent his property to," the ministry said, in response to a parliamentary question in 2022 about measures to prevent rental discrimination. "While we have a framework that protects the rights of all Singaporeans, we cannot rely on the law in every instance and will need to continue to deepen mutual understanding and empathy across different groups to build mutual trust, respect and understanding in our community." 'Landlords entitled to choose their tenants' Dr Mathew Mathews, IPS' principal research fellow and head of its Social Lab, said that while Singapore has robust laws to protect racial harmony, the lack of specific measures against rental discrimination stems largely from the complexity of proving such cases. He also drew parallels to workplace discrimination, which he said took many years and consistent advocacy before comprehensive legislation was introduced, despite longstanding concerns from minority groups. "In the context of property rentals, landlords are generally entitled to choose their tenants, and their decisions are often based on subjective assessments," Dr Matthews said. "This makes it difficult to clearly establish when a refusal is rooted in discrimination rather than other legitimate considerations." No discriminatory advertisements CEA's regulatory guidelines require agents to be sensitive to the multicultural nature of Singapore's society. They must also advise landlords against placing advertisements that are discriminatory, offensive or stereotyped in nature against any race, religion or group in society. Shafrudin empathised with his colleagues who feel pressured to carry out their landlords' discriminatory preferences. But what does he tell property agents who are facing such scenarios? "They have to understand why [the landlords have these preferences]," Shafrudin said. "Whether it is just personal bias against a specific group or a based on a bad experience or misunderstanding. "We will try to reframe the conversation [with landlords] back to the lease terms rather than identity… if they are concerned about cleanliness, then we can address these with specific clauses in the agreement. "If it crosses the line into blatant discrimination, then [property agents] have every right to walk away if they are not comfortable." Dr Matthews said that property agents should also be empowered and encouraged to educate landlords about Singapore's stance against rental discrimination, and remind them that such practices are not socially acceptable. [[nid:498986]] 'Diversity friendly' property listings, but are they really? Several property search platforms have also implemented various measures, which they said addresses rental discrimination and promote inclusivity. and PropertyGuru allow property agents to tag listings as 'Diversity Friendly' or 'Everyone Welcome' respectively — signaling that all renters are accepted regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. In the release of its 2024 Sustainability Report published on May 21, PropertyGuru said that one in four rental listings - or around 10,000 of the 40,000 on the platform - are tagged as "Everyone Welcome". As of May 28, around 2,300 of its 35,000 listings in are "Diversity Friendly". Other popular property search platforms, such as and EdgeProp, do not have this feature. Property agent Tan remains sceptical about whether properties tagged as welcoming to all on search portals truly live up to that label, even if he sees it as a 'nice gesture'. "It does not necessarily reflect what the landlord wants," he said. "When an agent ticks that box, it may be just so that the listing will get more eyeballs." Checks by AsiaOne found that even for some of listings that are tagged as inclusive-friendly, they still include phrases indicating the kind of tenants who are "preferred". An 'Everyone welcome' listing, published on May 20, says the home is 'suitable' for singles and families, but "no Indian". Responding to AsiaOne's queries, PropertyGuru said that its platform prohibits indicating preferences such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, or any physical or mental disability in its listings. Cecile Corda, head of sustainability at PropertyGuru Group, said that all its listings with the Everyone Welcome tag are reviewed for discriminatory language prior to posting. "The tag is suspended if the listing has been reported for discrimination. PropertyGuru reviews all cases, and our moderation team contacts the agent to work with him or her to amend the listing," she added. Users can also 'report' the listing on our platform for discriminatory behaviours at any stage of the property search process. Unconscious bias training for agents Property agents are also offered unconscious bias training and guidance on avoiding discriminatory behaviour, according to Corda. "Through continued education and open dialogue, we are working towards an ideal world where the Everyone Welcome feature will no longer be needed. It is a journey, and everyone has an important role to play," Corda said. Like PropertyGuru, a spokesperson for said that it has mechanisms, such as manual curation and keywords monitoring, to moderate listings that contain discriminatory language. "We do not track [the prevalence of discriminatory listings over time]," but based on observations, it has decreased." Tan believes that perceptions of tenants from minority groups in Singapore are gradually improving. Still, the question of who makes a 'good' tenant remains a topic people tend to avoid "making a big fuss about". "They will say, 'Oh, we don't discriminate. We tolerate," he said. [[nid:530162]] chingshijie@
CNA
15-05-2025
- Business
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - Author & Real Estate Boss Kelvin Fong's 'Elevate Your Assets, Elevate Your Wealth'
CNA938 Rewind Play 30 mins In 'Culture Club' Melanie Oliveiro speaks with Kelvin Fong, Deputy CEO of real estate agency PropNex Realty, and author of 'Elevate Your Assets, Elevate Your Wealth'. Fong will discuss how his book offers wealth creation strategies through real estate investment. He'll also answer common questions asked by property investors, such as: At what stage of my life should I buy property? How advisable is it to buy industrial properties or own a home overseas? How will the ongoing geopolitical tensions and global tariff tensions affect my mortgage? CNA938 Rewind - Faster than ever - 5G+ is here in Singapore Singtel has unveiled its new 5G plus network, promising speeds up to four times faster than the current 5G. Lance Alexander speaks to Associate Professor June Tay, Head of the Digital Media Programme at SUSS, to explain what this means for your phone and data usage. 11 mins CNA938 Rewind - Exploring the American outdoors with influencer Andre Carrillo In 'Destination Anywhere', Melanie Oliveiro speaks to Andre Carrillo: Filipino American traveller, influencer and video content creator. Carrillo talks about exploring Redding in Northern California and Denver, Colorado - two regions in the United States that are outdoor havens for nature lovers. View Andre's many adventures on Instagram @andrercarrillo. 20 mins CNA938 Rewind - Author & Real Estate Boss Kelvin Fong's 'Elevate Your Assets, Elevate Your Wealth' In 'Culture Club' Melanie Oliveiro speaks with Kelvin Fong, Deputy CEO of real estate agency PropNex Realty, and author of 'Elevate Your Assets, Elevate Your Wealth'. Fong will discuss how his book offers wealth creation strategies through real estate investment. He'll also answer common questions asked by property investors, such as: At what stage of my life should I buy property? How advisable is it to buy industrial properties or own a home overseas? How will the ongoing geopolitical tensions and global tariff tensions affect my mortgage? 30 mins CNA938 Rewind - Hey Taylor – a Made in SG Women's Health Clinic and App In 'Made in SG' Melanie Oliveiro speaks with the co-founders of Hey Taylor marketed as Singapore's first hybrid women's health clinic and app. Eve Lee and Dr Jody Paige Goh explain why they set up the practice which provides primary care designed around women's lives and healthcare needs. They'll explain how the clinic & app function to combine medical depth with tech-enabled care, designed to support women across every stage of life - offering primary care treatment, fertility screenings, menstrual and menopausal care and hormonal care consultations.
Singapore Law Watch
28-04-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
PropNex faces 2 lawsuits from property buyers who were penalised over ‘99-to-1' deals
PropNex faces 2 lawsuits from property buyers who were penalised over '99-to-1' deals Source: Straits Times Article Date: 28 Apr 2025 Author: Selina Lum Iras had found the property transactions to be tax avoidance arrangements. Real estate agency PropNex Realty is being sued by private property buyers who were penalised by the taxman for using the so-called '99-to-1' arrangement to reduce the additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) on their purchases. The property agents and law firms involved in the transactions have also been sued. In one case, a couple have sued PropNex, property agent Amos Koh and law firm CK Tan Law Corporation. Mr Kevin Rahim, 28, and Ms Jessica Tjitra, 32, are claiming a sum of nearly $850,000 that they had to pay the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) over their purchase of a unit at Riviere condominium. In the other case, Mr Melvin Li, 43, has sued PropNex, property agent Ian Sng and law firm City Law. Mr Li is claiming a sum of nearly $1.2 million he had to pay Iras over his purchase of a 1 per cent stake in his father's condo unit at Piccadilly Grand and in his mother's condo unit at Pullman Residences. In both cases, the buyers contended that they had relied on the representations made by property agents about the legality of the 99-to-1 arrangement. PropNex denied that it should be held liable for the acts of the property agents. ABSD is an extra tax on property purchases that applies to Singaporeans who already own a home, and to permanent residents and foreigners. The 99-to-1 structure was often used as a tax avoidance arrangement by buyers to reduce the rightful ABSD payable. The arrangement typically involves a first-time buyer purchasing a property and, within a very short period of time, selling a 1 per cent share of the property to a person who owns another property. It was used by those who already own a home to reduce the ABSD they pay as co-owner of an additional property. The Straits Times reported in May 2024 that Iras was set to claw back about $60 million in ABSD and surcharges after it uncovered 166 cases of private property purchases that involved the use of the 99-to-1 or similar arrangements to dodge ABSD. Couple said they were told it was legal Mr Rahim and Ms Tjitra, who are from Indonesia, filed their lawsuit in the High Court in February 2025. The couple, who are now permanent residents, are represented by Mr Gavin Neo of WongPartnership. They said in their statement of claim that Mr Koh had told them the 99-to-1 method was a legal and workable structure to reduce the ABSD payable. In July 2022, Ms Tjitra bought the condo unit in her sole name for $3.3 million, shortly after she obtained permanent residency. The ABSD rate for PRs buying their first property was 5 per cent, compared with 30 per cent for foreigners. The following month, she sold a 1 per cent share of the flat to Mr Rahim, who paid the 30 per cent rate on only this share. In August 2024, Iras notified the couple that the arrangement amounted to illegal stamp duty avoidance. Iras imposed a 30 per cent ABSD rate on the entire purchase price, as well as a 5 per cent surcharge. In his defence filed in court, Mr Koh admitted making the alleged representations. He said he learnt of this method from presentation slides prepared by CK Tan Law, and he believed it was a legitimate way to save on stamp duty. PropNex contended in its defence that Mr Koh was an independent contractor, and not its employee. It said he undertook that he would be personally liable for any unauthorised acts, wrongdoing, misrepresentations or fraud committed in the course of his work. The agency added that Mr Koh did not act for the couple; his commissions were paid solely by the developer of Riviere for introducing buyers and brokering sales. The law firm argued that the possibility that Iras could exercise its powers under the law to vary such an arrangement and impose a surcharge did not make it an illegal arrangement. The case is scheduled for an administrative hearing on April 30. Man said he was assured by property agent Mr Li's lawsuit was filed in January 2025. He is represented by Mr Quek Mong Hua of Lee and Lee. Mr Sng was the property agent who handled the sale of Mr Li's parents' house and the subsequent purchase of a semi-detached house in the names of Mr Li's brother and sister-in-law. Mr Li said his parents, who lived with his brother, wanted properties of their own, but were not eligible for a bank loan. According to Mr Li, his parents were advised by Mr Sng to each buy a unit at the Piccadilly Grand and Pullman Residences. Mr Sng suggested that Mr Li then buy 1 per cent of both properties, which would enable him to take out a loan in his name. Mr Li asked Mr Sng over WhatsApp if the transactions were legal, and the agent assured him that he did only 'legal stuff' because his livelihood was at stake. Mr Li said Mr Sng also told him that the transactions were proposed by his manager and teammates from PropNex, and that they never had any issues. To further assure him, Mr Sng recommended City Law to act for him and his parents. Mr Li later sought clarification from Iras after he became aware that it was investigating similar deals. Iras said his transactions contravened the law, and he was found liable to pay the full ABSD on both properties – at a 17 per cent rate for one, and 25 per cent for the other – as well as surcharges. A joint defence filed by PropNex and Mr Sng noted that he acted as the marketing salesperson for the developers of both Piccadilly Grand and Pullman Residences. The defence stated that Mr Sng told Mr Li he had learnt about a method commonly referred to as the '100-sell-1' method – another name for the 99-to-1 arrangement – from training sessions conducted by law firms and bankers. After checking with law firms including City Law on whether the method could be used for this situation, Mr Sng passed the information to Mr Li. Mr Sng denied making false representations. City Law asserted in its defence that it did not advise or affirm that the transactions were legal. The firm added that by the time it dealt with Mr Li, he and his parents had already committed to the purchases using the 99-to-1 arrangement. The case is understood to be headed for mediation. Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Straits Times
27-04-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
PropNex faces 2 lawsuits from property buyers who were penalised over ‘99-to-1' deals
Iras had found the property transactions to be tax avoidance arrangements. PHOTO: ST FILE PropNex faces 2 lawsuits from property buyers who were penalised over '99-to-1' deals SINGAPORE – Real estate agency PropNex Realty is being sued by private property buyers who were penalised by the taxman for using the so-called '99-to-1' arrangement to reduce the additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) on their purchases. The property agents and law firms involved in the transactions have also been sued. In one case, a couple have sued PropNex, property agent Amos Koh and law firm CK Tan Law Corporation. Mr Kevin Rahim, 28, and Ms Jessica Tjitra, 32, are claiming a sum of nearly $850,000 that they had to pay the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) over their purchase of a unit at Riviere condominium. In the other case, Mr Melvin Li, 43, has sued PropNex, property agent Ian Sng and law firm City Law. Mr Li is claiming a sum of nearly $1.2 million he had to pay Iras over his purchase of a 1 per cent stake in his father's condo unit at Piccadilly Grand and in his mother's condo unit at Pullman Residences. In both cases, the buyers contended that they had relied on the representations made by property agents about the legality of the 99-to-1 arrangement. PropNex denied that it should be held liable for the acts of the property agents. ABSD is an extra tax on property purchases that applies to Singaporeans who already own a home, and to permanent residents and foreigners. The 99-to-1 structure was often used as a tax avoidance arrangement by buyers to reduce the rightful ABSD payable. The arrangement typically involves a first-time buyer purchasing a property and, within a very short period of time, selling a 1 per cent share of the property to a person who owns another property. It was used by those who already own a home to reduce the ABSD they pay as co-owner of an additional property. The Straits Times reported in May 2024 that Iras was set to claw back about $60 million in ABSD and surcharges after it uncovered 166 cases of private property purchases that involved the use of the 99-to-1 or similar arrangements to dodge ABSD. Couple said they were told it was legal Mr Rahim and Ms Tjitra, who are from Indonesia, filed their lawsuit in the High Court in February 2025. The couple, who are now permanent residents, are represented by Mr Gavin Neo of WongPartnership. They said in their statement of claim that Mr Koh had told them the 99-to-1 method was a legal and workable structure to reduce the ABSD payable. In July 2022, Ms Tjitra bought the condo unit in her sole name for $3.3 million, shortly after she obtained permanent residency. The ABSD rate for PRs buying their first property was 5 per cent, compared with 30 per cent for foreigners. The following month, she sold a 1 per cent share of the flat to Mr Rahim, who paid the 30 per cent rate on only this share. In August 2024, Iras notified the couple that the arrangement amounted to illegal stamp duty avoidance. Iras imposed a 30 per cent ABSD rate on the entire purchase price, as well as a 5 per cent surcharge. In his defence filed in court, Mr Koh admitted making the alleged representations. He said he learnt of this method from presentation slides prepared by CK Tan Law, and he believed it was a legitimate way to save on stamp duty. PropNex contended in its defence that Mr Koh was an independent contractor, and not its employee. It said he undertook that he would be personally liable for any unauthorised acts, wrongdoing, misrepresentations or fraud committed in the course of his work. The agency added that Mr Koh did not act for the couple; his commissions were paid solely by the developer of Riviere for introducing buyers and brokering sales. The law firm argued that the possibility that Iras could exercise its powers under the law to vary such an arrangement and impose a surcharge did not make it an illegal arrangement. The case is scheduled for an administrative hearing on April 30. Man said he was assured by property agent Mr Li's lawsuit was filed in January 2025. He is represented by Mr Quek Mong Hua of Lee and Lee. Mr Sng was the property agent who handled the sale of Mr Li's parents' house and the subsequent purchase of a semi-detached house in the names of Mr Li's brother and sister-in-law. Mr Li said his parents, who lived with his brother, wanted properties of their own, but were not eligible for a bank loan. According to Mr Li, his parents were advised by Mr Sng to each buy a unit at the Piccadilly Grand and Pullman Residences. Mr Sng suggested that Mr Li then buy 1 per cent of both properties, which would enable him to take out a loan in his name. Mr Li asked Mr Sng over WhatsApp if the transactions were legal, and the agent assured him that he did only 'legal stuff' because his livelihood was at stake. Mr Li said Mr Sng also told him that the transactions were proposed by his manager and teammates from PropNex, and that they never had any issues. To further assure him, Mr Sng recommended City Law to act for him and his parents. Mr Li later sought clarification from Iras after he became aware that it was investigating similar deals. Iras said his transactions contravened the law, and he was found liable to pay the full ABSD on both properties – at a 17 per cent rate for one, and 25 per cent for the other – as well as surcharges. A joint defence filed by PropNex and Mr Sng noted that he acted as the marketing salesperson for the developers of both Piccadilly Grand and Pullman Residences. The defence stated that Mr Sng told Mr Li he had learnt about a method commonly referred to as the '100-sell-1' method – another name for the 99-to-1 arrangement – from training sessions conducted by law firms and bankers. After checking with law firms including City Law on whether the method could be used for this situation, Mr Sng passed the information to Mr Li. Mr Sng denied making false representations. City Law asserted in its defence that it did not advise or affirm that the transactions were legal. The firm added that by the time it dealt with Mr Li, he and his parents had already committed to the purchases using the 99-to-1 arrangement. The case is understood to be headed for mediation. Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Business Times
23-04-2025
- Business
- Business Times
PropNex Realty faces second lawsuit over 99-1 deals
[SINGAPORE] A PropNe x unit – together with its salesperson and a law firm – has been sued by an Indonesian couple claiming about S$850,000 over a 99-to-1 transaction, making this the second reported suit of such nature for the mainboard-listed company's subsidiary. This lawsuit came after PropNex Realty was one of the three defendants sued in January 2025 for S$1.2 million over a similar arrangement, where the buyer purchased properties holding 1 per cent stakes in a bid to reduce the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD). Kevin Rahim and Jessica Tjitra sued in February, naming PropNex Realty, salesperson Amos Koh and CK Tan Law Corporation as defendants in their claim of S$849,287. The Indonesian couple alleged that Koh had told the duo that the so called 99-to-1 arrangement was a legal and workable structure, and that Rahim would only need to pay the 30 per cent ABSD for his 1 per cent interest in a property, rather than for the entire purchase price. Tjitra acquired an apartment in the Riviere in her sole name for nearly S$3.3 million in July 2022, shortly after the Indonesian obtained Singapore permanent residency. She then sold 1 per cent of her condo unit to her then fiance Rahim for S$32,920 as tenants-in-common a month later. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) notified the couple in August 2024 that it would impose the ABSD rate of 30 per cent on the entire purchase price and a surcharge equal to 5 per cent of the amount of additional duty payable. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond. Sign Up Sign Up Iras notified the couple in August 2024 that it would impose the ABSD rate of 30 per cent on the entire purchase price and a surcharge equal to 5 per cent of the amount of additional duty payable. PHOTO: BT FILE The two claimants said that Iras deemed theirs a case of 'illegal stamp duty avoidance', and therefore treated the purchase as if they had bought the property together from the outset. Consequently, they paid S$849,287 to the taxman, which is the remaining amount owed out of the 30 per cent ABSD liability of S$987,600 and a S$40,442 surcharge, after offsetting the S$178,755 stamp duty and ABSD they earlier paid. Now the couple alleged that Koh did not make sure what he had told them about the 99-to-1 arrangement was true and accurate, despite knowing that they would rely on his representations in structuring their purchase in this manner. Their case against PropNex Realty is that the agency failed to ensure that Koh is adequately trained as a salesperson including being conversant in and comply with the relevant laws, regulation and rules. The agency had breached the duty of care owed to the claimants by allowing Koh to make false representations to them and allowed the 47-year-old to advise them to use an illegal stamp duty avoidance method, alleged the claimants, who are represented by Gavin Neo of WongPartnership. Also, it is responsible for Koh's alleged negligent misrepresentation to them, the statement of claim said. Similarly, the claimants alleged that CK Tan Law had failed to ensure that their 99-to-1 arrangement was legal nor advised them that the structure might be construed as unlawful when it represented them in the purchase of the Riviere. 'The third defendant fell short of the standard would be that expected of a reasonably competent and diligent conveyancing lawyer,' said the claimants. Not claimants' agent: PropNex and Koh PropNex Realty, however, pointed out in its defence that Koh was not the claimants' salesperson for the purchase as they had not entered into any estate agency agreement, and that neither the agency nor Koh received any commission or fee from the couple. It and Koh worked for Riviere's developer, introducing buyers and brokering sales, and received commissions solely from the developer. Moreover, Koh was an independent contractor and not its agent or employee, PropNex Realty claimed, and he had undertaken to comply with and observe the rules, policies and professional code it set down as well as those prescribed by the Council for Estate Agencies. PropNex Realty also claimed that the salesperson had also undertaken that he would be personally liable for any unauthorised or wrongful acts, misrepresentations, fraud or wilful misconduct committed by him in the course of doing sales, and agreed to indemnify the company for claims and legal costs. It denied that the 28-year-old husband and 33-year-old wife had relied on Koh's representations as they were aware that he, as an estate salesperson, was not qualified to provide legal or tax advice. Meanwhile, Koh claimed he received CK Tan Law's presentation slides in a WhatsApp group chat of his division members in May 2020, where there was a section on the steps involved in the 99-to-1 method and that there would be savings on the total stamp duties. He believed CK Tan Law's representation gave the 99-1 method legitimacy as it was provided by a law firm. PropNex Realty and Koh both contended that the law firm for the claimants' purchase was under a duty to advise them on the structure as well as the stamp duties payable, and that the claimants must have relied on the firm's expertise and professional advice. 'Not an illegal arrangement' But CK Tan Law disputed the allegations, claiming that it was acting on the couple's instructions on the 99-to-1 structure in the purchase and mortgage of the Riviere apartment. It also claimed that the couple did not query about the tax implications using this arrangement, and it did not provide any such advice to them either. The defendant denied that the manner of the purchase could be characterised as 'an illegal stamp duty avoidance arrangement' because Iras in exercising its powers to vary such an arrangement and impose a surcharge 'did not make it an illegal arrangement'. CK Tan Law contended its duty of care as the claimants' conveyancing lawyer did not include ensuring that the manner of the purchase was not an illegal stamp duty avoidance arrangement, advising them that their method might be construed as illegal, and flagging that the taxman might vary the purchase arrangement and levy a surcharge. This defendant claimed that the claimants had chosen to use Koh's suggested 99-to-1 method in their purchase, thereby contributing to their own loss. This lawsuit's case conference is slated to take place on Apr 30. Meanwhile, the court case where PropNex Realty is being sued for S$1.2 million is believed to be going for mediation, as the courts have always encouraged litigants to settle their disputes by alternative dispute resolution.
