SINGAPORE – Four customers of Tradenation and Tradeluxury who had obtained default judgments in civil cases to get back the money they paid for undelivered luxury goods have failed in a bid for the release of up to $2.84 million seized by the police.

A total of 187 police reports were filed against the two companies between May and August 2022, alleging that the two companies failed to fulfil orders of luxury watches and bags after receiving full payment. 

The couple who ran the business, Singaporean Pi Jiapeng and his Thai wife, Pansuk Siriwipa, both 28, had fled Singapore on July 4, 2022, in the container compartment of a Malaysia-registered lorry.

They were arrested by the Malaysian police at a budget hotel in Johor Bahru and handed over to the Singapore police on Aug 11, 2022.

Pansuk currently faces 172 charges, including for cheating and fraudulent trading, while Pi faces seven charges. Investigations are still ongoing, and court proceedings are in progress.

On July 13, 2022, four customers – Mr Jackson Chng Zhun Teck, Mr Lee Boon Ping, Ms Chang Khang Lee and Mr Hermen Tan Jen Sen – filed a High Court suit for breach of contract over the failure to deliver 40 Rolex watches, a Patek Philippe watch and four Hermes bags.

The suit, filed against the two companies and the couple, sought the return of $2.1 million paid between Jan 31 and May 17, 2022.

Mr Chng sought a further $472,500 for seven Rolex watches he had consigned to Tradenation for resale.

They subsequently obtained a default judgment for the sum of $2.6 million, plus interests and costs.

A default judgment is granted by the court in favour of the claimant when the defendant fails to file the required document to respond to the claim within a specified period of time.

In a bid to enforce the judgment, the four brought the present application under two provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, for the release of funds from five properties seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).

This includes two bank accounts of Tradenation, a bank account of Tradeluxury and a bank account of Pansuk. These were the subject of prohibition orders, which meant that the banks cannot allow any dealings with respect to the accounts.

The fifth property is the balance sale proceeds of a Chevrolet Corvette V8 that was purchased by Pi, amounting to $83,472.23.

The prosecution opposed their application.

Prosecutors argued that the bank accounts were seized before the applicants obtained the judgments, and that the funds for the purchase of the vehicle and the balance sale proceeds are traceable to other people, including two alleged victims named in the cheating charges.

They added that the CAD should be allowed to focus on investigations, and that if this application was allowed, it would likely result in further applications being brought by others who are eager to secure a share of the seized proceeds.

In a judgment published on Saturday, District Judge Cheng Yuxi said there was no reason to release the bank account funds on the basis of the legal provisions invoked by the four customers.

The four, represented by law firm Achievers, had argued that even though their judgments were obtained after the prohibition orders, the funds from the bank accounts can be released because there was no evidence that the CAD reported the seizures to the court within the required one-year period.

After the prosecution tendered evidence that the requisite reports were made, the four pointed out that the report for one account was made two days beyond the one-year period.

Judge Cheng said the report was made only two days late and, in any event, well before the present application was made.

As for the sale proceeds, the judge said that, based on the legal provision under which the car was seized, the possession of the property was with the police, rather than the financial institution, such as in a bank account under an accused person’s name.

Judge Cheng said the police were not a party that was indebted to the couple and the two companies. Thus, the four could not enforce the judgment debt against property that was in the possession of the police.

She added: “I understand the desire of the applicants to enforce the judgments they have obtained. However, Parliament has decided where to draw the line between the powers of the police to seize property for the efficacy of investigations, and the hardship caused to those who are prevented from dealing with the property.

“The role of the court is simply to give effect to the clear legislative provisions. On the particular facts of this case, the applicants do not fall within the delimited circumstances where release of seized funds is envisaged.”