Foreigner on trial for subletting to multiple tenants a flat he rented from a prison officer
SINGAPORE: A tourist who sublet a five-room apartment he rented out to several tenants over the course of more than two years is charged with operating an illegitimate business.
Two tenants who testified for the prosecution claimed that they paid between S$ 230 and S$ 250 per month for a bed in the apartment.
In violation of hire laws, it is thought that more than 20 individuals once stayed at the apartment.
Depending on the type of even, simply Singaporeans are permitted to rent out their entire apartment for a maximum of six people.
Guo Lianqiang, a 47-year-old Chinese nation, was put on trial on Thursday( Sept 21) on charges of violating the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act by subletting two models for profit in violation of his legitimate work permit.
Guo refuted the accusation, claiming that he had rented out the units but was not the brain. He asserted that Mr. Tien Ren Kai, a different Chinese national, had passed the lease to him, kept the hire profits, and had since lost contact with him.
Information, according to the trial, indicated that Mr. Tien has as left Singapore.
Guo supposedly sublet out two apartments: one at 47 Bendemeer Road and the other at Block 530 Serangoon North Avenue 4.
The Serangoon North even was the subject of the hearing on Thursday.
TESTIFIES FROM Older Jail OFFICER
Prison official Dennis Kochukutty, the tenant for the Serangoon North unit, testified on behalf of the prosecution. He admitted to the judge that after his parents passed away, he acquired the apartment.
He moved out in 2003 and rented the whole apartment away after getting approval from the Housing Board because the Singapore Prison Service provided him with cover.
According to Mr. Dennis, a former client introduced him to Guo, who later signed four 12-month lease agreements for the end of 2017 to 2021.
Guo paid S$ 2,600 per month to rent the whole apartment.
Guo was the primary landlord, according to Mr. Dennis, who merely liaised with him, but he was aware that there were co-tenants. He promised to get their data from Guo so he could release HDB on who his residents were and get new information if any new tenants had moved in to take the place of the previous ones.
He claimed that Guo would give him on time and that he had no problems with him as a landlord. If the price was less than S$ 150, Guo would resolve any minor problems he and the tenants may have, such as with jaded lamps.
The only significant change he observed was the installation of new air conditioners by Guo, which was only made clear to him after bringing potential customers to the apartment for a browsing at the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021.
When asked if he was certain that Guo actually resided at the apartment, Mr. Dennis replied,” I do not know.” He ultimately sold the apartment to customers in the middle of 2021.
” SECOND LANDLORD” WAS GUO.
Mr. Peng Sheng Guo, a Chinese nation who rented the Serangoon North apartment for between 10 and 12 months starting in March 2020, was called to testify as the prosecution’s next witness.
Mr. Peng claimed to operate in” fire protection” in the service industry and to have a work permit through he spoke Mandarin with an interpreter.
Due to the ongoing COVID – 19 pandemic, he was quarantined at a hostel in 2020.
Finally he came across an online listing for the apartment with a bed room and nbsp, as well as an included phone number. He claimed that after completing isolation, he called the number and went through.
Mr. Peng gave a wry smile and said,” I’ve been here for 12 years ,” when the prosecution questioned him about the identity of the person he spoke to over the phone. Naturally, I am aware that he is the second employer.
He clarified that whenever he rented a new home, the judge would inquire as to whether the tenant was Taiwanese or another” next landlord.”
Residents testify regarding existing plans
The apartment had four rooms, according to Mr. Peng, and he shared one with three other residents who each had a bed of their own.
He was unsure of the total number of people because the tenants worked both day and night shifts and he did not frequently observe them.
However, a ministry summoned one of the residents to provide an explanation after she was eventually diagnosed with COVID-19.
Mr. Peng claims that a department investigator claimed that there were more than 20 people living in the apartment. However, Mr. Peng claimed that there weren’t that many while he was it.
The prosecutors presented him with 11 pictures, and he was able to identify the accused and the client who contracted COVID-19 as well as two other co-tenants in his place, two ladies who shared the master bedroom.
When Guo visited, Mr. Peng promised that he and the various residents would pay their rent in cash at the end of each month. Guo did not remain at the apartment, according to Mr. Peng.
They do look for Guo if there were any problems with the apartment, and usually anyone cleaned up after themselves in common areas like the home.
The password for the online lock and the Wi-Fi password would be on a piece of paper Guo placed behind the main door when the tenants entered the apartment.
If a renter moved out, the passcode may sometimes be changed.
Foreign national Liu Ru Heng, another former client who works at a theater hotel, admitted to the court that he occupied the apartment from the end of 2019 to 2021.
Guo received S$ 230 per month in rent, with S$ 5 per day reduced if he cleaned the apartment.
According to Mr. Liu, an adviser picked him up from the airport and drove him to the target where he learned about the Serangoon North apartment.
Guo refused to enter into any rental agreements with Mr. Dennis, the primary tenant. Despite Mr. Dennis’ testimony that they would meet at the same coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio each year to mark a new deal extending his lease, he claimed the names were not his but rather Mr Tien’s.
District Judge Sharmila Sripathy – Shanaz is still hearing the case.
He could be sentenced to two years in prison, fined up to S$ 20,000, or both if found guilty of subletting two devices without a true work pass.
