SINGAPORE: Less than a 12 months after being released from prison, an unemployed man posed as a rich “sugar daddy” to deceive 3 17-year-old girls into having sex with your pet for money.
The girls never obtained any payment. One of them was also duped into lending the man cash and threatened directly into finding girls to keep him company.
Tan Chip Huat, 49, pleaded accountable to seven counts of cheating, improperly obtaining services, unlawful intimidation and deliberately causing alarm on Monday (Jul 25).
Another 13 similar charges will be considered when this individual returns for sentencing in August.
The three teens were among 10 victims Tan cheated of more than S$72, 000, said Deputy Public Prosecutor Eric Hu. Their own identities are secured by gag purchase.
Tan, who has previous convictions pertaining to cheating in 2006 and 2013, was released from prison in 2020.
He targeted his latest victims between January and August a year ago.
Tan understood that he had economic difficulties and never designed to pay the victims, but still led them on because he was “having fun”, stated the prosecutor.
His ruse involved posing as a high-flyer in the financial market who earned S$50, 000 to S$60, 000 a month, court papers stated. He also pretended to work inside a family business.
Tan claimed to reside in a condominium having a personal chauffeur, plus told one victim that he indulged their ex-girlfriends with expensive gifts.
In fact , he was unemployed during the offences, plus previously worked like a cleaner earning lower than S$2, 000 per month.
LOOKING FOR A “SUGAR GIRLFRIEND”
Tan met the first 17-year-old victim, identified as V3 in court documents, through online classifieds site Locanto on January 4, 2021.
The girl responded to Tan’s post offering S$5, 000 a month to get a “sugar girlfriend” since she needed monetary help with her school fees.
Color offered to sponsor V3’s tuition fees at an arts school, amounting to S$20, 000, in exchange for intimate services. She decided.
They met at a hotel on Jan 5, 2021 and had sex. Bronze told V3 he would pay her S$10, 000 first when he needed to keep a few spare cash.
He told her the lender transfer would be affected on Jan 10, 2021 and also persuaded her to provide him S$400.
But when V3 checked her bank account upon Jan 10, 2021, no money had been moved. Tan gave various excuses when he or she was confronted about this over the following days.
He also continued asking V3 to meet up or introduce her close friends to him.
During one such phone conversation on Jan 8, 2021, Color shouted at V3 when she stated she could not discover anyone to accompany your pet that night.
Tan was aware that one of V3’s close friends – one more 17-year-old victim recognized as V5 in court papers – worked like a social escort.
He threatened to expose V5 to law enforcement unless V3 obtained V5 to exchange him S$500 as a loan.
Afraid of the possible harm to V5’s reputation, V3 transferred the S$500 to Tan himself without telling the girl friend.
Tan said he would pay back the loan and also the payment he due V3. He certainly not did.
ENDANGERED TO BEAT UP MOTHER AND CHILD
Faced with Tan’s carried on requests for companionship, V3 asked a friend – identified as V4 in court documents : if she would have sex with him pertaining to S$1, 000.
V4, a 17-year-old single mother with the infant son, decided as she needed the money. She met Tan on January 8, 2021.
When V4 failed to receive the payment right after three days, the lady confronted Tan, who told her he would pay her an extra S$100 to compensate for the postpone.
V4 lamented to V3 in regards to the delay, saying that the girl really needed the cash. V3 then decided to transfer S$1, hundred to her friend away from her own pocket, thinking that she would be reimbursed by Tan.
When Tan learnt about this, he grew to become upset that V3 had paid V4 on his behalf, because she had taken money from her father to make the payment.
Over the phone, Tan demanded that will V4 return the cash to V3 or he would look up the girl address and defeat her and her baby up.
Both girls organized for V4 in order to temporarily transfer some cash to V3 to be able to look like she acquired repaid the S$1, 100, in order to conciliate Tan.
THREATENED TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT
Tan, who seem to still owed V3 and V4 money, started threatening V3 that he would hold back the payments unless she found someone to keep him corporation.
In a panic, V3 approached her friend V5, telling her that Color would pay S$3, 000 for lovemaking services. V5 decided and V3 followed her to meet Tan on Jan 13, 2021.
Such as V3 and V4 before her, V5 did not receive the transaction she was promised.
The prosecutor said that V3 did not benefit in any way through introducing her close friends to Tan, which she, V4 plus V5 never obtained any of the payments these were owed.
He added that Suntan also did not repay V3 a sum of at least S$2, 500 that she given him for his personal expenses.
CONTINUED CHEATING WOMEN AFTER ARREST
Tan was imprisoned on Jan twenty one, 2021, but continuing to cheat ladies after his police arrest up to August that will year.
A single was a 25-year-old girl whom Tan met through Locanto at the begining of May 2021. The girl told him that will she had charge card debts of about S$5, 000.
Suntan offered to help the woman settle her financial obligations by transferring S$77, 000 to her just for safekeeping, claiming which he was bad on managing his funds.
A few days later, learning that Suntan needed money, the woman lent him her credit card to buy gifts for his parents as she thought she would be getting S$77, 000 from your pet.
Tan utilized her credit card to make several purchases, which includes iPhones that he resold for profit. The particular victim’s losses were estimated at greater than S$11, 600.
When the woman afterwards confronted Tan, this individual wrote her 2 cheques that rebounded.
As an reason, Tan also sent the victim a picture of a nurse in the hospital and informed her that he was hospitalised. She did an online search and found that the image has been taken from a website.
She also researched Tan’s name plus found that he had previously been convicted for cheating offences. She made a police report upon Jun 15, 2021.
Another target was a 23-year-old girl who worked part-time as a social companion. On Jul 5, 2021, Tan responded to her advertisements on Locanto.
They had dinner that exact same day and he provided her S$10, 000 for a long-term sexual relationship, writing the girl a cheque. The particular pair had intercourse later that night.
The woman transferred the cheque within her account the next day but it bounced. By using Project X, an organisation that aids sex workers, the girl negotiated a payment of S$3, five hundred with Tan rather.
But the check that Tan had written for this sum bounced again, and he continued to make various justifications for the non-payment. The girl made a law enforcement report on Jul 19, 2021.
SENTENCING POSITIONS
Mr Hu requested the court in order to order an assessment of Tan’s appropriateness for corrective teaching, while defence counsels Mr Jerald Foo and Ms Levin Lin argued with regard to no more than four years’ jail.
Corrective training involves incarceration for between five and 14 many years and is usually imposed on repeat offenders. It is a separate routine from imprisonment, without early release.
The prosecutor declared that Tan would likely become sentenced to greater than 10 years’ prison under regular imprisonment.
He contended that Tan was a persistent offender that reoffended less than a year after being released through prison in 2020, and that his methods of deception had developed over time.
He also said that Color would have been charged with obtaining underage sex if he previously gone through with his promise to pay the 17-year-old victims for sexual intercourse.
Those who be a cheater and dishonestly get services can be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.
The particular penalty for legal intimidation is up to two years’ jail, an excellent or both.
Those who intentionally trigger alarm to another person can be jailed up to six months, fined as much as S$5, 000 or even both.