27-3-2024 (SINGAPORE) In a startling tale of filial betrayal and ruinous obsession, a Singaporean man found himself ensnared in a web of debt spawned by his penchant for lavishing flower garlands on nightclub singers, a practice known as ‘diao hua’. Desperate to extricate himself from this financial quagmire, he resorted to an unthinkable act – forging his mother’s signature to sell off her prized Rolls-Royce Dawn 6.6 V12 and Mini Cooper SE, valued at a staggering S$830,000.
The sordid saga unfolded in August 2022, when Liu Kuei Liang, the accused, found himself mired in mounting debts accrued from his frequent club visits and ‘diao hua’ indulgences. In a misguided attempt to settle his arrears, Liu hatched a scheme that would ultimately betray the trust of his own flesh and blood.
Enlisting the aid of a car dealer representative, Mr. Low Lye Seng of Autoart Singapore, Liu orchestrated the illicit sale of his mother’s luxury vehicles – the Rolls-Royce for a cool S$700,000 and the Mini Cooper for S$130,000. However, his deceit knew no bounds as he spun an intricate web of lies, claiming his mother was in Taiwan when she was, in fact, residing in Singapore.
With brazen audacity, Liu forged his mother’s signature on the purchase agreements before enlisting the help of a friend in Taiwan to play the role of his unsuspecting parent. When Autoart sought to verify the sale with Liu’s “mother”, the unwitting friend gave the green light, sealing the duplicitous deal.
Convinced by the charade, Mr. Low authorized a substantial deposit payment – S$100,000 for the Rolls-Royce and S$50,000 for the Mini Cooper. However, the façade crumbled mere weeks later when Liu’s mother, unaware of her son’s treachery, lodged a police report alleging the forgery and unauthorized sale of her cherished vehicles.
In a twist of fate, the two vehicles were eventually returned to Liu’s mother, but not without a hefty price – a S$150,000 refund to Autoart, further compounding the financial burden shouldered by the aggrieved parent.
As the case unfolded in court, Liu’s defense lawyer, Vijai Dharamdas Parwani, portrayed the incident as a “momentary lapse of judgment”, asserting that his client had merely sought “temporary financing” to alleviate his debts. Remarkably, Liu’s mother had purportedly forgiven her son and opted not to seek reimbursement for the substantial deposit, a decision Parwani attributed to a “moment of pique” that prompted the initial police report.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Vishnu Menon remained unswayed, highlighting the “planning and premeditation involved” in Liu’s actions, particularly his enlistment of the friend in Taiwan to “cement the lie.” Menon advocated for a jail term of four to six months, citing the exorbitant sums involved and the gravity of the offense.
In a scathing rebuke, District Judge Brenda Chua concurred with the prosecution’s assessment, noting that Liu had neither made restitution nor amends for his misdeeds. “The accused relied on the mother to rescue him from his mistakes,” she pronounced, underscoring the fact that Liu’s mother had become a victim herself, forced to pay for the return of her own vehicles despite being wronged.
Ultimately, Liu was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail for two charges of forging sales and purchase agreements, a punishment he plans to appeal.
