Re: So did any local malays protect local chinese from the racist mudland red shirts?
Wtf you know he is talking nonsense!........
Wtf you know he is talking nonsense!........
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Re: I have a query on Landlord rental deposit case
- Thread starter longist
- Start date
Re: So did any local malays protect local chinese from the racist mudland red shirts?
Fucker.
this forum's leongsam is a fucker too!
that sammyboyforum is also invested with chinese-dog-syndromes local-chinese and shit-skins!
Fucker.
this forum's leongsam is a fucker too!
that sammyboyforum is also invested with chinese-dog-syndromes local-chinese and shit-skins!
Re: So did any local malays protect local chinese from the racist mudland red shirts?
Limpeh disagree.
This nigger fucker leongsam let his bastard moderator dogs in sammyboyforum anyhow arbitrary bans forummers.
sammyboyforum should be banned by Govt!
EDMW is also bad, EDMW is controlled by malaysians dogs moderators, if you speak bad against malaysians, the dogs will ban you
Limpeh disagree.
This nigger fucker leongsam let his bastard moderator dogs in sammyboyforum anyhow arbitrary bans forummers.
sammyboyforum should be banned by Govt!
EDMW is also bad, EDMW is controlled by malaysians dogs moderators, if you speak bad against malaysians, the dogs will ban you
Last edited:
Re: So did any local malays protect local chinese from the racist mudland red shirts?
you this bastard scum total loser dog sucked my cock everyday!
you this bastard scum total loser dog also ate my feces and you licked my anushole everyday!
KNNBCCB!
you are a bastard total loser scum impotent dog!
you this bastard chinese dog's main target is the chinese new citizens. Fucktard total losers scum chinese dog such as you mainly stir hatred against mainly the Chinese new citizens but you only very occasionally token scold a bit the India/Pinoy/other FTs etc to give the false impression that you are not a chinese dog but the truth is you are a bastard total loser retarded motherfucker chinese dog!
you this bastard retarded scum total loser dog will die very horribly in road accident very soon!
Limpeh all along know you are a 50plus-years-old total loser unemployed low-income bastard cock-sucking dog!
you this bastard scum total loser dog sucked my cock everyday!
you this bastard scum total loser dog also ate my feces and you licked my anushole everyday!
KNNBCCB!
you are a bastard total loser scum impotent dog!
you this bastard chinese dog's main target is the chinese new citizens. Fucktard total losers scum chinese dog such as you mainly stir hatred against mainly the Chinese new citizens but you only very occasionally token scold a bit the India/Pinoy/other FTs etc to give the false impression that you are not a chinese dog but the truth is you are a bastard total loser retarded motherfucker chinese dog!
you this bastard retarded scum total loser dog will die very horribly in road accident very soon!
Limpeh all along know you are a 50plus-years-old total loser unemployed low-income bastard cock-sucking dog!
Last edited:
Re: So did any local malays protect local chinese from the racist mudland red shirts?
you are a bastard retarded total loser m&d dog!
Just becos that cheena low-income unemployed 50plus-years-old dog narongwongwan everyday play 69 blow-job with you this bastard dog, doesn't mean chinese race people are all like that!
you this bastard m&d dog sucked my cock and you ate my feces!
you are a bastard retarded total loser m&d dog!
Just becos that cheena low-income unemployed 50plus-years-old dog narongwongwan everyday play 69 blow-job with you this bastard dog, doesn't mean chinese race people are all like that!
you this bastard m&d dog sucked my cock and you ate my feces!
So what can that Jovier Chew's mother say now?!
That time it was reported in the media that Jovier Chew's mother said her son is a kind innocent good man and she said the real culprits that mastermind the scam are his employees.
Now it is revealed that this scum Jovier Chew is the real mastermind of these scams,
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...inglepage=true
Four former employees at the now-defunct Sim Lim Square store, Mobile Air, pleaded guilty to their cheating offences in court today (Oct 1).
Koh Guan Seng, 38; Kam Kok Keong, 31; Lim Hong Ching, 34; and Kelvin Lim Zhi Wei, 32, faced between one to 15 counts of abetment by conspiracy to cheat and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
They had worked as freelance sales executives for Mobile Air’s boss, Jover Chew, between 2013 and 2014, and received 40 per cent in commission from sales profits.
The court heard — for the first time — the sales scam was devised by Chew and taught to his employees.
Each handphone’s cost price was indicated on its packaging in code, legible only to Chew and his salesmen.
The salesmen were instructed to sell the handphones at above cost price. If they fail, they had to dip into their own pockets to make up for the difference.
The scam kicked off with walk-in customers being offered a handphone at below cost price. Once a price had been agreed upon, the salesman would collect payment, then open up the packaging and present the handphone for inspection. Next, the customer would be asked to sign an invoice stating the agreed price.
Upon inking the deal, the salesman would then write additional items — for instance, an in-house warranty or a phone service — on the invoice and mark up the total price.
Should the customer ask to call off the deal, the salesman would either refuse a refund or impose a cancellation fee.
Using this ruse, Chew and his accomplices scammed 25 victims last year.
Kam had four of his nine charges — involving S$4,260 — proceeded with, and the rest taken into consideration. The prosecution called for a sentence of 13 to 14 months imprisonment.
Court documents showed that he had colluded with Kelvin Lim and Chew to scam a Bangladeshi construction worker last October.
Mr Lutfur Rahman Abdul Alim was initially quoted S$330 for a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 handphone. After collecting payment by NETS, Kelvin Lim told Mr Lutfur that he had to pay another S$600 for a two-year warranty. Chew further threatened him with a fine of S$1,000 and revoking of his work permit. Frightened, Mr Lutfur followed suit with their instructions but failed to pay the full amount as his bank account only had S$307. Eventually, he paid another S$300 over NETS, leaving himself a balance of S$7.
For abetting others to cheat, Kelvin Lim had one charge, and the prosecution advised a jail term of five months.
A third accomplice, Koh faced 15 charges involving S$9,789, and had six charges proceeded with.
Defence lawyer Edmund Wong argued that Koh was a “mere employee” who had tried to dissuade his boss from these errant ways. In fact, he had asked to quit, after realising that his actions were wrong.
But Chew refused and demanded Koh repay him in full for an earlier loan, should he choose to leave the company. Unable to do so, Koh volunteered to address all the complaints from the consumer watchdog Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and the Small Claims Tribunals.
Court documents, however, revealed that Koh had taunted customers, inviting them to lodge complaints with CASE or sue him. For these crimes, the prosecution suggested 16 to 18 months imprisonment.
As for the final accomplice, Lim Hong Ching, who had two charges, the prosecution proposed a jail term of eight months.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Eunice Lim argued that the four were the perpetrators of “brazen” cheating, seriously violating corporate integrity and committing offences against vulnerable victims — most of whom were foreigners.
“Many of the victims were low-wage, daily-rated workers with limited understanding of the English language, consumers rights and the avenues of seeking recourse... it will be a tall order for them to pursue their remedy,” she said.
The hearing has been adjourned till Oct 14, and the four men are out on bail.
Mobile Air gained infamy last year after Vietnamese tourist Pham Van Thoai was filmed going down on his knees to beg for a refund for a phone he had purchased. The shop also made headlines for returning S$1,010 in coins to a customer.
That time it was reported in the media that Jovier Chew's mother said her son is a kind innocent good man and she said the real culprits that mastermind the scam are his employees.
Now it is revealed that this scum Jovier Chew is the real mastermind of these scams,
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...inglepage=true
Four former employees at the now-defunct Sim Lim Square store, Mobile Air, pleaded guilty to their cheating offences in court today (Oct 1).
Koh Guan Seng, 38; Kam Kok Keong, 31; Lim Hong Ching, 34; and Kelvin Lim Zhi Wei, 32, faced between one to 15 counts of abetment by conspiracy to cheat and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
They had worked as freelance sales executives for Mobile Air’s boss, Jover Chew, between 2013 and 2014, and received 40 per cent in commission from sales profits.
The court heard — for the first time — the sales scam was devised by Chew and taught to his employees.
Each handphone’s cost price was indicated on its packaging in code, legible only to Chew and his salesmen.
The salesmen were instructed to sell the handphones at above cost price. If they fail, they had to dip into their own pockets to make up for the difference.
The scam kicked off with walk-in customers being offered a handphone at below cost price. Once a price had been agreed upon, the salesman would collect payment, then open up the packaging and present the handphone for inspection. Next, the customer would be asked to sign an invoice stating the agreed price.
Upon inking the deal, the salesman would then write additional items — for instance, an in-house warranty or a phone service — on the invoice and mark up the total price.
Should the customer ask to call off the deal, the salesman would either refuse a refund or impose a cancellation fee.
Using this ruse, Chew and his accomplices scammed 25 victims last year.
Kam had four of his nine charges — involving S$4,260 — proceeded with, and the rest taken into consideration. The prosecution called for a sentence of 13 to 14 months imprisonment.
Court documents showed that he had colluded with Kelvin Lim and Chew to scam a Bangladeshi construction worker last October.
Mr Lutfur Rahman Abdul Alim was initially quoted S$330 for a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 handphone. After collecting payment by NETS, Kelvin Lim told Mr Lutfur that he had to pay another S$600 for a two-year warranty. Chew further threatened him with a fine of S$1,000 and revoking of his work permit. Frightened, Mr Lutfur followed suit with their instructions but failed to pay the full amount as his bank account only had S$307. Eventually, he paid another S$300 over NETS, leaving himself a balance of S$7.
For abetting others to cheat, Kelvin Lim had one charge, and the prosecution advised a jail term of five months.
A third accomplice, Koh faced 15 charges involving S$9,789, and had six charges proceeded with.
Defence lawyer Edmund Wong argued that Koh was a “mere employee” who had tried to dissuade his boss from these errant ways. In fact, he had asked to quit, after realising that his actions were wrong.
But Chew refused and demanded Koh repay him in full for an earlier loan, should he choose to leave the company. Unable to do so, Koh volunteered to address all the complaints from the consumer watchdog Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and the Small Claims Tribunals.
Court documents, however, revealed that Koh had taunted customers, inviting them to lodge complaints with CASE or sue him. For these crimes, the prosecution suggested 16 to 18 months imprisonment.
As for the final accomplice, Lim Hong Ching, who had two charges, the prosecution proposed a jail term of eight months.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Eunice Lim argued that the four were the perpetrators of “brazen” cheating, seriously violating corporate integrity and committing offences against vulnerable victims — most of whom were foreigners.
“Many of the victims were low-wage, daily-rated workers with limited understanding of the English language, consumers rights and the avenues of seeking recourse... it will be a tall order for them to pursue their remedy,” she said.
The hearing has been adjourned till Oct 14, and the four men are out on bail.
Mobile Air gained infamy last year after Vietnamese tourist Pham Van Thoai was filmed going down on his knees to beg for a refund for a phone he had purchased. The shop also made headlines for returning S$1,010 in coins to a customer.
Last edited:
I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
My relative rented his HDB-APPROVED whole flat to some FTs.
The FT tenants broke HDB subletting rules during their 1 year stay in my relative's flat.
As a result, my relative intends to forfeit the tenants's 1 month deposit.
The FTs threatened to sue my relative.
My relative is very confident that the FT tenants will lose the court case if they really go sue.
But just out of curiosity, if the FT tenants wins the court case, is it my relative only needs to pay the 1 month deposit to them or on top of the 1 month deposit, still have to pay legal costs to the FT tenants??!
My relative rented his HDB-APPROVED whole flat to some FTs.
The FT tenants broke HDB subletting rules during their 1 year stay in my relative's flat.
As a result, my relative intends to forfeit the tenants's 1 month deposit.
The FTs threatened to sue my relative.
My relative is very confident that the FT tenants will lose the court case if they really go sue.
But just out of curiosity, if the FT tenants wins the court case, is it my relative only needs to pay the 1 month deposit to them or on top of the 1 month deposit, still have to pay legal costs to the FT tenants??!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
Linpeh fuck you dead dead!
And Linpeh sue you dead dead!
you this bastard don't come disturb my thread!
Linpeh fuck you dead dead!
And Linpeh sue you dead dead!
you this bastard don't come disturb my thread!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
Is it you mean even if the FT tenant wan to hire a lawyer to claim back the 1 month deposit, the lawyer will confirm reject their case and tell them to go Small Claims Tribunal??!
Is it you mean even if the FT tenant wan to hire a lawyer to claim back the 1 month deposit, the lawyer will confirm reject their case and tell them to go Small Claims Tribunal??!
Last edited:
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
So is it even if the Small Claims Tribunal rule in favour of the FT tenant, the most is the flatowner just need to refund the FT the 1 month deposit and the flatowner confirm no need to pay any legal costs/or admin costs??!
So is it even if the Small Claims Tribunal rule in favour of the FT tenant, the most is the flatowner just need to refund the FT the 1 month deposit and the flatowner confirm no need to pay any legal costs/or admin costs??!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
Assuming for example the 1 month deposit for the 5-rm HDB flat is $2400, hence if the FT bring the case to Small Claims Tribunal against the s'porean flatowner, it is either the FT tenant loses his case and gets $0 from the flatowner or the FT tenant wins his case and the flatowner has to pay the FT the 1 month deposit of $2400 but whatever the outcome of the Small Claims Tribunal, the flatowner will never be required to pay more than $2400 to the FT tenant, correct or not??!
Assuming for example the 1 month deposit for the 5-rm HDB flat is $2400, hence if the FT bring the case to Small Claims Tribunal against the s'porean flatowner, it is either the FT tenant loses his case and gets $0 from the flatowner or the FT tenant wins his case and the flatowner has to pay the FT the 1 month deposit of $2400 but whatever the outcome of the Small Claims Tribunal, the flatowner will never be required to pay more than $2400 to the FT tenant, correct or not??!
Last edited:
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
There is also a worry that the FT tenant will burn the flat or damage the flat out of spite/revenge, is there any way in which the s'porean flatowner can evict the FT tenant to move out before the end of his contract lease?!
There is also a worry that the FT tenant will burn the flat or damage the flat out of spite/revenge, is there any way in which the s'porean flatowner can evict the FT tenant to move out before the end of his contract lease?!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
you are crazy!
I where got loh so?! your earlier reply is not very clear!
you are crazy!
I where got loh so?! your earlier reply is not very clear!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
you are dead wrong.
It's the FTs tenants start the war 1st
I think they don't want to renew their employment pass in s'pore and they going to return back to their own countries alredy, that's why they now very xialan
start war but don't know win or lose?
you are dead wrong.
It's the FTs tenants start the war 1st
I think they don't want to renew their employment pass in s'pore and they going to return back to their own countries alredy, that's why they now very xialan
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
you are dead wrong and you are foolish!
My relative already seeked the view of police.
The police already told my relative that the police cannot evict the tenants if their contract lease hasn't finish yet.
Remember that last year that sibei xialan tenants in that landed property case, the houseowner call the police but police also cannot evict the tenants.
Last edited by longist; Today at 08:15 AM.
Strictly speaking, a lot depends on what is stated in the tenancy agreement, with regard terms on sub letting, peaceful stay, forfeiture of deposit, etc.
Assume the tenancy agreement is a standard one, all the above terms should be in. The fact that the landlord wants to forfeit the one month's deposit means that the tenant has already violated the terms with regard to sub letting and this in turn trigger the right for landlord to terminate the agreement and ask the tenant to move out immediately.
Still hesitate and say tenant is siah lan and refused to move means landlord himself is not sure of his own position. Assuming he now has the right to ask the tenant to vacate the premises, just gather some relatives or friends and then go to the unit and ask tenant to scram immediately. If tenant refused, just call the police and evict the tenant. Why still hesitate???
Now that things are not well between the parties, why take the risk of waiting one more month? Never know what tenant will be up to in the meantime and at end of one month, maybe see the premises damaged or incur some ah long business and landlord will have troubles for long, long. At that time, even one month's deposit will not cover for the damages.
Don't forget, the fact that the premises is one that sees violation of sub letting rules, the landlord is ultimately the one to face the music if HDB or some other authority comes down hard on such violation.
If want to forfeit deposit, yet don't know what to do next, don't know own rights, is just plain foolish. Create some more noise and wait for tenant to strike back is even worse!!!
you are dead wrong and you are foolish!
My relative already seeked the view of police.
The police already told my relative that the police cannot evict the tenants if their contract lease hasn't finish yet.
Remember that last year that sibei xialan tenants in that landed property case, the houseowner call the police but police also cannot evict the tenants.
Last edited by longist; Today at 08:15 AM.
Last edited:
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
Fuck you!
you this severe chinese-dog-syndrome middle-aged retarded very low-income loser bastard get out of my thread!
Fuck you!
you this severe chinese-dog-syndrome middle-aged retarded very low-income loser bastard get out of my thread!
Re: I have a query on tenant renting flat's deposit case
Fuck you!
you are a bastard retarded dog!
Fuck you!
you are a bastard retarded dog!
wow
you are a bastard total loser motherfucker retarded asshole scum dog!
Last night my dog fucked your prostitute whore mother until she died! And you this bastard motherless retarded mad scum dog ate my feces and you licked my anushole!
you this bastard retarded motherfucker total loser dog and all your whole family will all die very horribly in road accidents tomorrow!
you are a bastard total loser motherfucker retarded asshole scum dog!
Last night my dog fucked your prostitute whore mother until she died! And you this bastard motherless retarded mad scum dog ate my feces and you licked my anushole!
you this bastard retarded motherfucker total loser dog and all your whole family will all die very horribly in road accidents tomorrow!
Similar threads
