SINGAPORE - In debt from buying flower garlands for singers at “diao hua” clubs, or Thai discos, a 33-year-old man forged his mother’s signature to sell her two cars.

Liu Kuei Liang, also known as Kent, had an agreement with car dealer Autoart Singapore to sell his mother’s Rolls-Royce Dawn 6.6 V12 and Mini Cooper SE for $700,000 and $130,000, respectively.

He even had a friend pose as his mother in a phone call to deceive the car dealer into thinking his mother had authorised the sale.

On March 22, Liu was sentenced to 12 weeks’ jail after pleading guilty to two counts of forgery. He is appealing against the sentence.

According to a judgment made available on March 27, Liu contacted Mr Low Lye Seng, a representative of Autoart, on Aug 1, 2022, to sell the cars.

He lied that his mother was in Taiwan and that he would get her to sign the sale agreements after she returned.

Liu then forged his mother’s signature in Chinese characters on the documents and sent them back to Mr Low.

When another Autoart representative asked Liu for his mother’s phone number, Liu gave the employee the phone number of his friend, Lala, who is based in Taiwan.

Posing as Liu’s mother, Lala took the call from Automart, which led the dealership to believe the sale was legitimate. Mr Low authorised a deposit payment of $150,000 for both cars to Liu.

On Aug 16, 2022, Liu’s mother lodged a police report against her son as she believed he had forged her signature to sell her cars.

Seeking a jail term of four to six months for Liu, Deputy Public Prosecutor Vishnu Menon argued that the custodial threshold was crossed as the value of the cars involved in Liu’s forgery offences was high.

He added that there was planning and premeditation involved, with the Taiwan-based friend helping to “cement that lie”.

Defence lawyer Vijai Dharamdas Parwani sought a high fine instead, saying the cars were returned to Liu’s mother after she made a full refund of the deposit amount.

The Rolls-Royce was later sold in April 2023 for $1 million.

The lawyer said Liu’s mother made the police report “in a moment of pique” and has since forgiven her son. She signed a statutory declaration in August 2023 to withdraw the police report.

In response, the DPP said restitution was made by Liu’s mother and not by Liu, adding that a fine is not appropriate in this case as there is nothing to stop Liu’s mother from paying the fine on her son’s behalf.

He added that neither forgiveness, nor the fact that Liu’s mother would have to care for her grandson if Liu is jailed, should be regarded as mitigating factors.

District Judge Brenda Chua said there are two victims in this case – Liu’s mother, who was taken advantage of by her son and paid the car dealer $150,000 on her son’s behalf, and the car dealer, which would have given up any interest accrued in connection with the sum.

She added that Liu did not make amends on his own: “Despite being a victim of the accused’s crime, the mother nonetheless stepped forward to pay so that she could have her own cars returned. The accused relied on the mother to rescue him from his mistakes.

“As the prosecution stated: (If) someone else pays for your crime, how can we say that you are remorseful?”

For each count of forgery, Liu could have been jailed for up to four years, fined, or both.