Creditors file over $198m in claims against troubled Qoo10, but only $34,650 recovered

SINGAPORE – More than $198 million in claims have been submitted by creditors to the liquidator of beleaguered online marketplace Qoo10, but only $34,650 has been recovered, according to minutes of the latest creditors’ meeting seen by The Straits Times.

Of the sum recovered, $20,000 was from Qoo10’s 11 bank accounts with DBS Bank, $14,150 was from rental deposits that were held by landlords of employees, and $500 came from the disposal of office furniture and IT equipment.

According to information submitted by Qoo10 founder and chief executive Ku Young-bae to the liquidator, AAG Corporate Advisory, Qoo10’s total assets are valued at $685.6 million.

But the bulk of that comes from Qoo10’s three e-commerce platforms – Tmon, WeMakePrice and Interpark Commerce – all of which are now under corporate restructuring in the Seoul Bankruptcy Court after failing to make payments to the platforms’ merchants since 2024.

According to the minutes of the Jan 17 meeting, Mr Abuthahir Abdul Gafoor of AAG Corporate Advisory told creditors that $11.3 million in trade and other receivables included debt owed to Qoo10 by Tmon, WeMakePrice and Clues Network, an Indian company operating an e-commerce platform called ShopClues.

Another asset, Qoo10’s shares in its former logistics arm Qxpress that had a face value of $12.1 million, had been transferred out, according to the minutes.

This came after three shareholders that had provided US$42 million (S$56 million) in loans to Qoo10 and were given the option to acquire its shares in Qxpress as collateral, exercised their conversion rights in July 2024 and acquired the shares from Qoo10.

Some $18.6 million in investments remain to be verified, according to the minutes.

Mr Abuthahir added that the liquidator will be liaising with DBS to recover a fixed deposit of $380,000, as well as $715,000 held by payment gateway providers Worldpay and PayPal.

“The recovery of $685.6 million is highly doubtful because Tmon, WeMakePrice and Interpark are undergoing restructuring, or the investment has already been transferred out of Qoo10 or is unaccounted for,” a source close to the matter told ST.

Qoo10’s total liabilities far exceed the sums recovered so far.

According to the Jan 17 creditors’ meeting minutes, the liquidator received 322 claims totalling $250,441 from three preferential creditors and $197.9 million in unsecured claims.

Preferential creditors refer to those that have a legal right to be paid before other creditors, and are given priority in the distribution of assets. 

The preferential claims consisted of $155,000 in unpaid goods and services tax, as well as claims filed by two former Qoo10 employees for notice pay and leave encashment.

The remaining 319 unsecured creditors’ claims comprised trade and customer payables, and intercompany payables or loans owed by Qoo10 to its related companies.

Unsecured creditors are those who extend credit without requiring collateral, meaning they have no specific assets to claim if the borrower defaults. 

Mr Abuthahir said the liquidator will decide on the validity of debt claims and if they should be paid at a later stage, “subject to availability of funds for any dividend distribution”.

The liquidator was appointed in November 2024 to take over management of the insolvent company after Korea Culture Promotion (KCP), which operates culture portal sites and issues culture gift certificates in South Korea, sued Qoo10 for nearly 76 billion won (S$69 million) in unpaid debt.

Singapore’s High Court approved the winding up of Qoo10 in November 2024 and allowed 21st Century Healthcare, which said it is owed $954,115, to replace KCP as the claimant.

A committee of inspection – a group that represents the interests of the creditors – was appointed on Jan 17, 2025, to supervise and assist the liquidator with the administration of Qoo10’s affairs. This includes appointing lawyers, approving the liquidator’s fees and starting legal proceedings for asset recovery.

Qoo10’s liquidation follows mounting claims from its unpaid vendors, which triggered investigations by the authorities in both Singapore and South Korea.

Due to cash flow issues faced by Tmon and WeMakePrice, which accounted for a third of Qoo10’s sales, Qoo10 could not collect receivables.

Negative media reports and speculation resulted in a further decline in sales and cancellation of orders, and some merchants discontinuing sales on the platform. This exacerbated cash flow issues and dampened its ability to fulfil requests for refunds and payments to merchants.

Following customers’ complaints over delays in processing refunds and payments, the Monetary Authority of Singapore suspended Qoo10’s payment services in September 2024, and the police here are investigating the company over payment delays to vendors. All employees’ services were terminated by the end of October 2024 due to the company’s lack of funds, the liquidator said.

According to the minutes, in response to a creditor’s question on the expected schedule for the conclusion of the liquidation process and possibility of debt recoverability, Mr Abuthahir said that at this stage, there is no definitive timeline for the completion of the liquidation.

“The liquidation administration is currently in progress, with efforts on gathering relevant information and realising the company’s assets,” he said.

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/qoo10-under-fire-creditors-file-198m-in-claims-but-only-34650-recovered

Training provider FirstCom Academy offered money for new learners, vouchers for Google reviews

SINGAPORE: Training providers should not offer incentives for people to refer others to sign up for courses, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) said after FirstCom Academy was suspended for three months because of its marketing practices. 

This is against SSG’s terms for training providers, the authority said in response to CNA’s queries.

A former FirstCom employee who worked with trainers told CNA that these incentives included shopping vouchers. Participants were also given free food during some courses.

One trainer who used to teach courses at FirstCom Academy showed CNA an email from 2022 about the company's referral programme. It offered trainers 20 per cent of the full course fee for every new learner that they referred.

FirstCom Academy has been under investigation since early this year after SSG received public feedback.

It was announced on Nov 27 that the training provider would be suspended from January to March 2025 over concerns relating to the use of a referral programme for marketing.

Besides incentives for referrals, the academy also offered vouchers for Google reviews. 

The former employee and the ex-trainer showed CNA slides asking course trainees to do reviews in exchange for shopping vouchers.

In response to CNA's queries, SSG said on Monday (Dec 2) that such practice is unprofessional.

“We strongly discourage incentives in exchange for favourable reviews on platforms such as Google, as it runs against professional conduct,” it told CNA.

“SSG continues to review and sharpen our marketing guidelines, so that providers publicise their offerings clearly without misleading learners.”

As of Dec 9, FirstCom Academy has close to 50,000 reviews, with a 4.9-star rating. The company features its Google rating on its website, describing itself as the “most publicly-reviewed training academy in Singapore”.

On its profile page on the Skillsfuture website, the company says it has a “proven track record of ensuring that our learners remain competitive in the current job market”. 

It cites its high Google rating from tens of thousands of learners as the reason for this.

When contacted by CNA, FirstCom Academy declined to comment.

FREEBIES, REFERRALS

The former FirstCom employee told CNA she had voiced concerns about practices at the firm. The woman, who wanted to be known as Jane, quit last year.

She showed CNA screenshots of trainers being offered referral fees to bring in new learners. 

She added that this referral programme was an “open thing”, meaning that trainers and trainees knew about it.

Those who referred others were handed vouchers or gifts. 

The ex-trainer, who wanted to be known as Sunny, showed CNA the email where the company was offering 20 per cent of course fees for referrals.

The email said it would be paid out after the learner has completed the course - defined by the company as having achieved 75 per cent attendance and marked as “competent”.

Last week, SSG said it would terminate two of FirstCom Academy’s WSQ courses due to lapses in ensuring course quality.   

During the three-month suspension, FirstCom will not be able to start new WSQ courses. 

Funding subsidies for all FirstCom Academy courses that start during the suspension period will not be eligible for government course fee subsidies or SkillsFuture Credit usage.

VOUCHERS FOR REVIEWS

The academy’s Google rating forms part of FirstCom Academy’s marketing strategy, featuring on its Facebook page and website.

Sunny and Jane both showed CNA a slide asking course trainees to write Google reviews in exchange for S$10 shopping vouchers.

“Personally, I feel Google reviews should be non-biased,” said Sunny, adding that he was uncomfortable with the academy asking trainers to include the slide in their teaching materials.

“Ethics is very important to us as trainers,” he said. 

Jane said trainees were told to write a few lines in their Google reviews, rather than just giving a star rating.

Under SSG’s marketing guidelines for training providers, they should not provide any referral awards or rewards or provide any gifts or vouchers to “incentivise or persuade the public to sign up” for courses.

It should also not use any similar means or conduct any lucky draws to get new learners.

Permission has to be sought from SSG to conduct such marketing practices.

Testimonials from trainees should include the name of the trainee, how that person is related to FirstCom, and the year the testimonial was given. 

The training provider should also provide SSG with contact details of the trainee so the authority can verify the authenticity of the testimonial.

SSG said that FirstCom Academy should “take this time to improve the practices and standards of their marketing processes and course delivery”.

“To maintain public confidence in the lifelong learning system, SSG will not hesitate to take action against training providers found to have engaged in marketing misconduct,” added the authority.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/firstcom-academy-training-provider-money-new-learners-vouchers-google-reviews-4795446

Fitness studios in S'pore shut down overnight, owner uncontactable, customers stranded

Police reports have been lodged against two fitness studios in Singapore after customers and instructors discovered that they have closed down without notice.

Kyklos Studio and its affiliated brand X Fitness are reportedly run by Atlas Ang, 31, according to The Straits Times.

Kyklos Studio customers discovered something was amiss when they stepped into a deserted yoga studio on Sep. 12.

The lights were on, the equipment were ready, but the instructor was nowhere to be seen even 20 minutes into the scheduled class.

Kyklos Studio runs yoga classes at Tekka Place and spin classes at the GR.iD shopping mall, according to ClassPass, which is used to book sessions at gyms and fitness centres.

A disgruntled customer complained online about the Sep. 12 yoga class, further mentioning that the business has remained incommunicado despite repeatedly calling and messaging the number it provided.

A quick online search revealed that the Kyklos Studio website is no longer accessible, while its Instagram and Facebook pages are also no longer available.

ST reported that Ang has become uncontactable.

The X Fitness website, which is no longer available, also lists classes in Hougang Sports Hall.

Left hanging

Even though a refund to the affected customer was still made through ClassPass for the credits that were spent on the class without the instructor, other customers who had booked classes and packages with the studio directly were left hanging and were provided no recourse for refunds.

Another person left high and dry said she had only discovered that Kyklos Studio had shut down when she went to their Instagram page to book another class.

According to her, customers with existing packages were meant to directly message the Instagram page to book classes as the studio was migrating to another application.

The only information she could find was from an instructor who said they were also "very much shocked and confused".

The instructor apologised and said they have been trying to reach the studio since Sunday night, Sep. 11.

Sep. 11 likely last day of operations

ST also reported that a customer was at the Kyklos Studio at GR.iD on Sep. 11 just before 11am and was likely the last person to see the business in operation.

Shouting was heard coming from inside the studio at that time, and there were two men inside the studio's premises.

A few minutes later, the customer received a notification on her phone that the class had been cancelled and then the studio’s doors were locked by the staff.

Customers' classes expired without notice

Before the sudden disappearance of the studio, it allegedly removed tickets for classes from its members' accounts without prior notice.

Mothership reader Stephanie Say said she sent the studio a message on Sep. 7 after realising that a ticket went missing in her account.

The studio responded by claiming that her ticket had already expired.

According to Say, she had bought a package of 10 classes for S$120 during a sale in 2021, which was supposed to be valid for a year.

Then, in mid-August 2022, the studio migrated to a different host app.

"This caused a lot of dissatisfaction because people lost their old tickets when the owner claimed that the tickets expired, even though we know they hadn't," said Say.

She is far from the only customer to face this problem, based on the studio's Google Reviews.

In the recent two weeks, numerous users have complained about a glitch that caused their tickets to disappear after a system revamp.

When queried on this, the studio told the users that there were no tickets left in their accounts as they had expired.

More at https://mothership.sg/2022/09/kyklos-studio-x-fitness-closed-down/

All Nails Mama outlets close down suddenly, leaving customers with unused packages in the lurch

Nail salon Nails Mama has shut down both its outlet at Kovan Heartland Mall and Block 152 Serangoon North Avenue 1, leaving customers with unused packages worth hundreds of dollars.

Stomper Diana said: "I bought a nails package from Nails Mama and still have $342.20 outstanding."

She told Stomp: "The last time I visited them was in January. Since March, I have been having trouble getting a slot to do my nails. This rarely happens in the last few years when I patronised them.

"On Aug 4, Nails Mama sent me a WhatsApp message to inform me that they will not be continuing their lease at Heartland Mall and the last day of operation will be Aug 28.

"However, we can use our outstanding credits at another outlet in Serangoon North Ave 1.

"I have tried replying to their WhatsApp message, calling their shop, calling their mobile numbers for both outlets, Facebook Messenger and even Instagram to fix an appointment to use my credits, but never once did they respond or pick up the calls.

"A few days after I messaged them on FB, they closed down their page. I started to get worried and am suspicious that they might have closed their business totally.

"A friend who also patronises them was at Kovan Heartland mall on Aug 19 and informed me that Nails Mama was totally closed.

"I decided to Google online to see if there were any comments or complaints from Nails Mama customers. I found many of their customers stranded in the same situation and they have left reviews on Nails Mama's Google page."

One reviewer said: "Took packages from them but no one called or even messaged regarding them ceasing their operations. I have a $300 package with them and they did this unethically. Tried calling them but no one answered."

Another wrote: "This is so horrible. Made an appointment with them on Aug 16. When I went there, the entire place was closed. Been trying to call the shop to reschedule an appointment to a later date but couldn’t get hold of them. I just went to the shop on Aug 9 and the staff just said it was due to (Nails Mama) not renewing the lease. I still have hundreds worth of credits."

Diana told Stomp that she went to the Serangoon North outlet on Saturday (Aug 20). "And indeed, it was totally shut."

The Stomper said: "I patronise the Kovan outlet and I know they have quite a fair bit of elderly customers too and they may not be aware of the closure and that their credits are no longer accessible."

https://stomp.straitstimes.com/singapore-seen/all-nails-mama-outlets-close-down-suddenly-leaving-customers-with-unused-packages-in

AMK Nail Salon Closes, CASE Receives 47 Complaints From Customers Who Bought Packages

Ang Mo Kio Nail Salon Closes With Over S$40,000 Worth Of Customers’ Packages Unfulfilled

Frequent patrons of beauty services would typically buy packages that offer a better bang for their buck.

However, customers of Bling Bling Nails, a manicure parlour at Ang Mo Kio (AMK), lost hundreds to thousands of dollars after it shuttered suddenly last October.

Disgruntled, over 100 of them banded together and lodged a police report on the matter.

Shin Min Daily News later reported that between 1 Oct 2021 to 20 Jun 2022, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received 47 complaints about Bling Bling Nails.

AMK nail salon closes suddenly

Bling Bling Nails had been operating at Block 452 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 for four to five years when it suddenly closed down in October last year.

A customer named Ms Huang told Shin Min Daily News that she had frequented the nail salon since 2017 and even signed up for packages.

She had always trusted them, especially since she knew the owner, Ms Low Kaining.

But when the nail salon closed down, Ms Huang still had over S$1,000 left in her package.

Initially, customers were told that when the new salon, Collate Nails, takes over the premises, they would be able to continue using their packages there.

However, shortly after taking over, Collate Nails founder Cherie Yu shared that the shop had disputes with Bling Bling Nails. Therefore, they would not be allowing customers to utilise the remainder of their packages.

In a Facebook livestream on Tuesday (21 Jun), Ms Yu explained that she was not given the full story when she took over the salon.

According to Ms Yu, she was told that customers would be able to finish using their Bling Bling Nails packages fairly quickly. She and Ms Low also agreed that some customers will be getting refunds for their packages instead.

It was only after taking over that she realised the salon had promised customers that if they spent S$300, they would receive S$800 worth of credits.

Alleging that the packages were worth over S$100,000 in total, Ms Yu said that if she were to fulfil all of them, her business will go bankrupt.

Many customers still have packages remaining

The affected customers then formed a Telegram group with over 100 people. Together, they lodged a report against Bling Bling Nails with the police as well as with the small claims tribunal.

The case was later dropped after the owner of Bling Bling Nails promised to open an outlet at Thomson Road so that they could complete their packages.

While the new shop did indeed open in November, Ms Huang claimed that it was extremely difficult to book an appointment.

The salon owner previously said she was willing to allow them to use their packages to buy products, but she did not fulfil this promise.

Speaking to MS News, Bling Bling Nails customer Joey Lee shared that on 13 Feb, the Thomson Road outlet shuttered as well.

Patrons, as well as three staff members, were only informed about the closure on the day itself. The employees, who were foreigners, were suddenly left without their work permits.

Customers like Ms Lee and Ms Huang also lost contact with the salon owner as she had changed her number.

Ms Lee, who had signed a package before Covid-19 hit, still had over S$1,000 remaining.

Another customer, Ms Yang, said she signed two packages with Bling Bling Nails, one in 2018 and another in 2021. She still has over S$500 left in it.

Bling Bling Nails’ website states that they had another outlet at Novena, which has also closed down.

CASE receives 47 complaints

According to Shin Min Daily News, CASE received 47 complaints about Bling Bling Nails between the period of 1 Oct 2021 and 20 Jun 2022.

Most complaints were about how Collate Nails was not allowing customers to utilise their Bling Bling Nails packages. Several other complaints also address the lack of a refund.

The total value of these customers’ packages is reportedly worth over S$40,000.

CASE President Melvin Yong said those who face similar issues may reach out to them for help.

Ms Lee told MS News that the police had said they could not take action against the owner. She shared that the situation was particularly concerning since many of the AMK outlet’s customers were elderly folks in the area.

She now hopes that the authorities will be able to do something to help those who were affected.

Hope CASE will get to the bottom of things

Due to the nail salon’s sudden closure, many customers have a lot of money on the line.

With the owner uncontactable, they can only look to the authorities for help.

Hopefully, CASE will get to the bottom of things and resolve the matter once and for all. But ultimately, it should also be up to Bling Bling Nails to take responsibility and do right by their customers.

https://mustsharenews.com/amk-nail-salon/

61 year old shu shu went to salon for a haircut, ended up paying $1.7K for 13 sessions of chapalang treatments!

99 Reno is a scam empire! Beware!

S’pore Wedding Company Allegedly Owes Customers Up To $30K, Over 17 CASE Reports Filed

Wedding By LQ Allegedly Owes Multiple Customers Refunds From Cancellations

Organising a wedding is no mean feat, which is why most couples would engage a wedding company to help plan and sort out the nitty-gritty details.

Unfortunately, things have been far from smooth-sailing for customers of Wedding by LQ.

Following the cancellation of their weddings due to Covid-19 restrictions, customers have allegedly been unable to receive compensation. The amounts that the company owes different couples apparently range from $500 to $30,000.

According to BERITAmediacorp, at least 4 police and 17 Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) reports have been filed against the company between 1 Jan and 5 Oct. Police investigations are ongoing.

Futile attempts to receive a refund from Wedding by LQ

A Wedding by LQ customer, Mr Fariq, took to Facebook on 9 Oct to share his failed attempts to get a refund from the company.

Mr Fariq detailed his futile attempts to contact the vendor, claiming that countless calls were left unanswered. The single call that eventually went through entailed the vendor promising to make a refund by a certain time.

When the refund never came and Mr Fariq tried to contact the vendor again, he was allegedly blocked from all forms of communication.

You can read the post in full here, and have a look at the screenshots of their exchanges which Mr Fariq posted.

Customers post complaints on Wedding by LQ Facebook page

A look at the Wedding by LQ Facebook page also shows various comments requesting an audience with the company.

One netizen even shared that he has been waiting for a refund for over a year.

Another netizen claimed that despite the company’s rampant activity on social media, they have not responded to his email.

At the time of writing, comments are disabled on their more recent Facebook posts.

Wedding by LQ’s offices shifted without notice

According to BERITAmediacorp, various customers have resorted to visiting Wedding by LQ’s physical office to seek compensation.

However, upon reaching the addresses stated on their Facebook page, the office seemed to no longer be in operation.

They apparently discovered that Wedding by LQ had shifted to a different office without informing customers.

But when some of them tried to visit the new office, they found it closed too, reported BERITAmediacorp. The company’s website also appears to be unavailable.

Government issues guidelines for dispute resolution

As Covid-19 has affected many wedding plans, the Government has issued guidelines for anyone seeking to find solutions to disputes relating to deposit repayments.

While they can help mediate proceedings, they urge both service providers and clients to find a compromise between themselves.

One couple had attempted this route but have yet to find an agreement, according to BERITAmediacorp.

Meanwhile, at least 4 others have filed police reports, which the police have confirmed receipt of with BERITAmediacorp. They stated that they’re investigating the matter.

CASE also confirmed that they’ve received 17 complaints between 1 Jan and 5 Oct 2021.

https://mustsharenews.com/wedding-by-lq-company-refunds/

Over 40 disgruntled members of 2 F45 fitness studios begin to get refunds after months of delays

SINGAPORE — For a few months, disgruntled members of two fitness studios have been trying to secure refunds after they continued to be charged even after they said they asked to terminate or put their memberships on hold.

Nine complaints have been lodged with the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) against F45 Training Yio Chu Kang and the unopened F45 Training Geylang Bahru.

Responding to TODAY’s queries, the police confirmed that one gym member had made a police report.

The gym operators have started issuing more refunds in recent days after one unhappy member set up an Instagram page last month to air her frustrations and attracted more than 40 members with similar grievances.

When TODAY visited the studio at Yio Chu Kang at 1pm on Wednesday (Sept 8), a man who declined to have his name published had just finished teaching a class. He identified himself as the former owner who stepped down two months ago and is now only teaching classes.

Checks by TODAY showed that his name is listed among the registered owners of two firms that run the gyms.

F45 Training operates on a franchise business model around the world, with an “own an F45” page linked to its website, where people can make enquiries.

The man admitted to having a “lack of communication” with customers, adding that he and the studios’ three other partners are in the midst of “restructuring”.

“The entire team will get a new management team to come to do a whole restructuring and to give better communication to all members,” he said.

​​The Yio Chu Kang outlet is owned by JDAA Private Limited, which was incorporated in August 2019.

Based on the contract for members of the Geylang Bahru outlet seen by TODAY, it is owned by JDA Fitness Private Limited, which was incorporated in January this year.

When asked about the situation of the Geylang Bahru gym, originally due to open in March, the man said that it is now slated to start operating in October.

“We have faced many delays… (getting) approval, licensing, things like that. We didn’t have an update ourselves so, of course, we can provide them with an update that says that we don't have an update… but we understand we could have done a better job,” he told TODAY.

He said that the delay in providing refunds boils down to “mismanagement”. “At the end of the day, we won’t create an excuse for it. What we are trying to do is to salvage the situation.”

When TODAY visited the Geylang Bahru studio, neighbouring tenants said that they have noticed workmen at the site “once in a while”, most recently last month. They have not heard construction noises or seen gym equipment being moved into the space.

At about 2.30pm, F45 Training Geylang Bahru issued an apology on its Instagram page, noting its “lack of communication and updates”. It also urged members who are seeking a refund to email the gym.

Operators of fitness studios have been hit by various restrictions since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and they have been forced to close their doors during various periods.

The latest official advisory from the authorities, as of Sept 2, is that gyms and fitness studios can host mask-off activities in groups of up to five if all individuals are vaccinated.

MEMBERS’ GRIEVANCES

Complaints from members mainly centre on lack of communication, having trouble getting refunds or being charged fees without their agreement.

One former member of F45 Training Yio Chu Kang told TODAY that she continued to be charged for two months after she thought her membership had been terminated. Another member claimed that her membership had been renewed for four months without her agreement.

The woman who set up the Instagram account, who wanted to be known only as Jin and is a former member of the Yio Chu Kang studio, said that she did so to shed light on the issue she was facing because she felt “helpless”.

“So many people were affected for so long and he really ignored all of us until we got together on this account, making it clear we were impatient and were putting pressure on him,” the 27-year-old administrative assistant said.

She added that most of the more than 40 people who had reported negative experiences across both studios have been refunded in recent days.

“Maybe about eight of them from Geylang Bahru are still waiting for refunds, but the management reached out to them this afternoon promising to refund them by today (Wednesday). I think about three or four from Yio Chu Kang have yet to be refunded.”

Jin, who had been a member of the studio since late last year, had paid a total of S$828 for 12 weeks of classes and managed to attend classes for four weeks before the Phase Two (heightened alert) measures came into effect.

She said that she had some difficulties suspending her membership, an option offered by the gym.

After sending numerous emails and text messages, and creating the Instagram account, Jin finally received a refund on Aug 18 and her membership was cancelled.

“A gym is a place to get healthy, but when the management doesn't care about your health concerns and ignores your questions and valid, reasonable requests especially during times like these, it ruins the whole purpose of going to one,” she said.

“We do understand that gyms have been affected due to the heightened alert measures, but we would really appreciate having some assurance from the owners during these stressful periods when everyone is stuck in limbo.”

Ms Sumi Neo, 39, another former member of the Yio Chu Kang studio, filed a complaint with Case and sought help from her bank, which advised her to cancel her credit card linked to her membership after she continued to be charged two months' worth of fees (a total of S$512) despite asking for the termination of her membership.

The bank, DBS, also helped her raise a dispute over the matter.

Ms Neo, who works in the aviation industry, said: “I asked for my termination so shouldn’t there be a reply on the status of my termination? I even completed the notice period required before I could stop going there.

“When the gym deducted the first amount, it insisted that it was a system glitch but when it happened again, I knew it couldn’t be anymore. So I asked the company what was going on but I was left in the dark.”

On Tuesday, Ms Neo said that DBS managed to receive one month’s worth of fees from the studio.

“And today, the bank decided to fully just credit back the amount after hearing everything that had happened over this time. It said (it did so) out of goodwill,” she said.

Human resource executive Sylvia Chee, 29, has not been as fortunate.

Ms Chee thought she had signed up for a “one-off” four-month membership that lasted from January to the start of May after she was given one complimentary week.

“I needed to move out from that area so I told the people in charge that I would like to continue on but only for two months. But before we could have a proper discussion, I was charged for another four months again,” she said, noting that the gym charged her S$1,076.

Her requests for help have fallen on deaf ears, she added.

“I feel really frustrated as he promised to do something but he has dragged it on for months and eventually totally ghosted me.

“Also I feel really stressed now as I know that he has many refunds to make and I’m scared that I may not get back my money.”

Case president Melvin Yong told TODAY that eight of the complaints it received were against the Yio Chu Kang outlet and one against the outlet at Geylang Bahru.

"In general, consumers complained that they were charged membership fees despite them having terminated or suspended their memberships. Consumers also complained about the auto-renewal of their fixed-term memberships," said Mr Yong.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/over-40-disgruntled-members-2-f45-fitness-studios-begin-get-refunds-after-months-delays

Case issues alert against renovation contractor after getting 30 complaints

SINGAPORE - The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) has issued a company alert against 99 Reno, a renovation contractor based in French Road.

Case said it received 30 consumer complaints against the contractor from July 2020 till end of June 2021.

Most of the complaints were from consumers who made advance and instalment payments but experienced repeated delays in renovation works, Case said on Friday (July 30).

Case had tried to resolve the issues with 99 Reno but was unsuccessful. The company, which has an office registered at Kitchener Complex in French Road, also did not respond to a warning letter issued by Case.

When The Straits Times visited the registered address of 99 Reno on Friday, the company there was found to be Panaoffice Business Centre. A staff member at the office told ST that 99 Reno uses the place as its registered address but only for its mail to go there.

"In many cases, renovation work such as installation of kitchen cabinets, carpentry work and electrical works were left incomplete," Case said. "Some consumers reported that 99 Reno had collected prepayments for their projects, but did not start work."

Consumers had also reported that the company cited the Covid-19 pandemic, manpower shortage and cash flow issues as reasons for the delay in renovation works.

The company was also allegedly unable to provide a firm date for completing the works.

Yet, 99 Reno continued to take on new projects and collect deposits from consumers, said Case. The company is also said to have asked existing customers to pay the full contract sum to restart uncompleted renovation work.

"According to consumers, the cost of the renovation projects ranged from $6,000 to $54,000," said Case.

It would monitor 99 Reno closely, and said it would not hesitate to take the necessary action provided for under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), which may include referring the matter to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore.

More at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/consumer/case-issues-alert-against-renovation-contractor-after-getting-30-complaints

EDMWer alleges bicycle shop at Far East Plaza scammed him:

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/scam-bicycle-shop-applesports-sg-at-far-east-plaza-02-87.6495555/

'You cannot resign': SGUnited Traineeship firm threatens fresh grad who found full-time job elsewhere

Michael ‘closed one eye’ when he was made to do a full-time job without proper training. But when the company tried to discourage him from resigning using threats and half-truths, he sought help from government authorities, only to have his complaints ignored.

Back in June 2020, the government rolled out the SGUnited Jobs & Skills Package in response to the "epic challenge" posed by job losses amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

Displaced workers would be able to apply for over 40,000 new jobs and 30,000 skills-training vacancies, while fresh graduates could look into applying for 25,000 traineeships.

More than a thousand employers offered traineeships under the scheme, in response to government encouragement, which included generously sponsoring 80 per cent of training allowances.

Amid hiring freezes and a glum economic outlook, the traineeships offered job-seekers industry experience in their field of choice, as well as competitive training allowances — the next-best thing to a full-time job, and a significant step up from what a typical internship would offer in terms of length of experience or remuneration.

But it was still the next-best thing.

"You cannot resign"

Which is why two months after starting his traineeship, Michael (not his real name) tendered his resignation to his supervisor after finding full-time employment, only to be given a rude shock.

The company told him, in no uncertain terms:

Michael's training agreement contains strict non-disclosure requirements, which is why he requested that Mothership keep him anonymous, for fear of potential legal repercussions from the company. In hindsight, this in itself was a "red flag" which, he admits, he did not pay close attention to initially.

The traineeship contract that he signed with the company was for a year. Michael says that he was also asked to compensate the company for the remaining months in the contract — a point that was anyway denied by the company in later email correspondence.

In spite of that threat, Michael proceeded to send an official resignation letter via email, and — to be doubly sure — mailed a copy to the company's HQ.

The email reply he received reiterated the company's rejection of his resignation, and piled on other discouragements.

"I don't know whether [they were trying] to threaten me or make me feel scared," he says, showing Mothership the email reply he received.

It was clear enough to Michael that the company was keen to minimise turnover, especially since his role was one that involved regular client interaction.

He was even threatened with the prospect of a "written complaint" that the company had allegedly received from a prospective client about how he handled their inquiries, though he never received a copy of the complaint or more information about what it supposedly said, despite requesting for it.

Backed up by the advice of friends who are lawyers, Michael is sure that these are empty threats. "I know it's bullsh*t," says Michael. "I'm not that naive."

As long as he served out his contractually-agreed one-month notice period, he knew that he would be covered.

Which is why his reaction to being told he could not resign was not fear, but disappointment — in the company, and in the way they tried to discourage him from resigning.

Guilt tripping

The contents of the email, Michael says, were aimed at "guilt tripping me lah."

The email said that if he was looking for a job, he should not have applied for a traineeship and deprived another applicant of the place, and suggested that his early departure would disadvantage him in his future interactions with "all" government agencies.

Michael felt that this was a misrepresentation of the traineeship and various government agencies, and so he copied the Singapore Business Federation — the government's "appointed programme manager" for the SG United Traineeships — in his email reply, hoping that they would pick up on the company's unbecoming conduct, and intervene somehow.

He also attached a copy of the official traineeship FAQs, citing the fact that it said rather clearly that "trainees can leave the traineeships at any point in time, if there are good reasons to do so (e.g. offered a full-time role elsewhere)."

It was not the first time Michael had felt disappointment at his employer's behaviour, and would not be the last.

In fact, that email marked the start of a frustrating two-month long process of trying to serve out his notice period and to get the company to pay his final training allowance.

Asked to serve clients on day one

Michael's issues with his traineeship employer began on his first day at work.

To begin with, Michael did not even know that it would be his first day.

He had been awaiting further confirmation after signing the employer's traineeship agreement, only to be surprised by a call from them in September 2020, informing him that his traineeship was confirmed, and asking him to report to the office on that very day.

Eager to start off on the right foot, Michael agreed, and rushed down to meet his supervisor for the first time.

When he arrived, his supervisor thrust a bundle of documents at him, gave him a cursory briefing, and then instructed him to start serving clients who had appointments on that very day.

No training

That brief interaction would be the closest thing to any "training" that Michael would receive at his traineeship.

He did not go in expecting to be spoon-fed.

"I can just close one eye," he says, regarding the overall lack of structured training in the traineeship programme.

"In fact I can close two eyes," he adds, reiterating that he had entirely expected to be working independently and meeting clients at some point.

But even with this attitude, Michael was taken aback by how he was left to his own devices with actual clients, from the first day of his traineeship.

It also turned out to be one of the rare times when he actually saw his supervisor at all.

Michael was soon required to be — in his words — a "one man show", with basically unlimited latitude as to how to meet with and serve the company's clients.

"There was not even a point in time where she was there [in client meetings] guiding me, or saying 'don't [do] like this' or whatever," Michael says.

And while his traineeship agreement came with a copy of a "development plan" in its annexes, laying out the training and exposure that he would supposedly acquire, Michael says: "I didn't learn anything stated in the development plan."

One month's notice

Bewildered as Michael was by the employer's behaviour in trying to bully him into staying with them, he simply decided not to engage with them any longer, and stopped replying any emails from the management relating to his resignation.

Besides interacting with his clients, he reduced his vocabulary to "yes", "no", and "noted" when speaking to his supervisor or other staff at his workplace. "The point for talk is over," Michael said.

Aside from the fact that the company never acknowledged his resignation, he got through his final month without too much difficulty, since after all, his supervisor hardly showed up at work.

In that final month, Michael continued to perform the tasks required of him, but admits that "[his] mindset did change a bit," and started to be more selective about which tasks he would give 100 per cent effort.

Nonetheless, he made sure to maintain "bare minimum" standards of work.

"I don't want them to have anything to use against me," explains Michael.

Why might a company choose to hire a trainee for a full-time job?

Putting aside the rushed start he had, where "everything was on the fly", Michael does not think that he was underpaid — in his view, his tasks and hours did match up to the amount he received as an allowance.

So what might have stopped the company from advertising the same job, with the same pay, as a full-time position instead?

Some key differences between a traineeship and a full-time position is the 80 per cent subsidy on the training allowance payable to a trainee by the company, and the fact that employers are not required to make CPF contributions.

Benefits such as leave are non-obligatory, and up to the company to extend, "on a discretionary goodwill basis".

In other words, it is a lot cheaper for a company to take in a trainee as compared to a full-time worker.

How are traineeships regulated?

During his last month at the company, Michael sought clearer directions from government agencies involved.

Trainees are not covered under the employment act as they aren't employees

Michael sought advice on his situation from Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shortly after submitting his resignation, in hopes that they would be able to back him up and make it easier for him to leave the traineeship.

However, traineeship contracts, Michael would discover, are not covered under the Employment Act, meaning that he was not able to rely on MOM's advice for contract termination, which laid out clear parameters for an employee in his situation.

While employers are "obliged to accord statutory benefits prescribed under the Act to an intern", MOM said in 2013, trainees do not have the same protection, and are not considered employees.

Therefore, MOM referred Michael to the Singapore Business Federation.

SBF promises to take cases of potential abuse "seriously"

Michael would read in The Straits Times — some time after the last day of his traineeship — that SBF promised to take cases of potential abuse of the traineeships "seriously", in a forum letter published on Jan. 14. SBF said:

This did not give Michael much assurance. Rather, it came off as jarring, since it did not seem to line up with his experience at all.

He explains that a few weeks after the contentious email exchange with his company, he received a call from someone at SBF seeking his side of the story and explaining that SBF would also need to get the company's account of the facts, before following up.

By his last day, he had not heard back, and wrote SBF an email (seen by Mothership) which summarised the whole debacle — including his suspicion that the company was misusing the funds set aside for the traineeship to fill what was essentially a full-time position, and a detailed account of how the company had tried to stop him from leaving.

According to Michael, the replies he got were "all about allowance".

Emails from SBF requested administrative information (such as the dates when he reported to work) for the agency to follow up on the matter of his unpaid allowance, but appeared to show no interest in looking into Michael's complaints about the company.

Michael subsequently called SBF to follow up, only to be told that he should take his issues to the "higher management" of his company.

Shortly after that, he received another email from SBF, informing him that "there are no outstanding disputes".

In the meantime, Michael continued to see advertisements for similar traineeships under the company on the mycareersfuture website.

Allowance finally paid, but is the case closed?

Michael was eventually paid his outstanding allowance, more than a month after his last day at the company in December.

But the monetary compensation did not go far in assuaging his concerns about how the traineeship programme is being handled, given how the company "got off the hook just like that".

"This is taxpayers' money," he says, expressing disappointment at the fact that the issues he raised were not looked into more proactively.

While Michael had the benefit of advice from lawyer friends, he wonders how someone else — perhaps less connected, or less wary — would react if their traineeship employer resorts to "guilt-tripping" them into staying on for the rest of the traineeship.

https://mothership.sg/2021/01/sg-united-traineeship-exploitation/

EDMWer kpkb window grilles installed by U-Gate Design Pte Ltd had scratches on them:

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/beware-u-gate-design-pte-ltd-6424845.html

Black-hearted SG company director drove Malaysian employee to suicide:

https://www.facebook.com/Save-us-from-SLM-Vxxxxxcare-Singapore-104038901511621

Scammer Handphone Shop at Bedok

Just want to share about a mobile shop located at Block 213 Bedok North Street 1. My mother went there yesterday noon to enquire about changing the casing for her hp. The owner of the shop snatched my mother's phone from her to take a look and immediately ran off to another mobile shop. My mother was shocked and waited for the owner to return.

Surprisingly the owner had already removed my mother's old handphone screen protector without her permission and replaced it with a brand new one. My mother queried why he simply ran off with her phone and proceeded to remove her screen protector without informing her. The owner thus told my mother that her screen protector was damaged and needed a replacement. He proceeded to ask my mother what type of phone casing she preferred; she indicated a preference for a red casing. The owner then fixed the chosen casing for her accordingly and demanded $66 for both casing and screen protector.

My mother refused to pay, explaining to the owner that she did only intended to change the casing, not the screen protector. He then challenged my mother to lodge a report against him. My mother was afraid the owner would not return her phone, so she told him she had only $55 on her. The owner took all 55 dollars.

My dad went back to the shop shortly requesting a refund because this amounted to cheating. He told the owner that my mother did not agree to change the screen protector; neither was she being informed of the cost of the casing beforehand.

The owner acted like a hooligan, yelling at my dad and refusing to refund monies paid.

We have since lodged a police report; the police also advised us to report this matter to CASE.

Sharing this to warn others to avoid this unethical mobile shop. It appears the owner quotes prices for his items on a whim. We are concerned there might be other old uncles or aunties out there who have been previously cheated by this hooligan owner but didn't dare to talk about their horrifying experiences.

Source: https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/gpgt-scammer-handphone-shop-bedok-6062669.html

CSI-ed out by HWZ EDMWers:

The shop's address is registered under Mobile Eclipse.

https://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/mobile-eclipse-rogue-mobile-trader-c714338.html

Person who allegedly scammed the complainant's mothers is dude called Kenny.

Only dumb fucks would pay to enrol in these duplicitous courses. What you need to know is already beamed all over the internet for free!

PSA: Avoid choosing Delivery from CAT & THE FIDDLE

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/psa-avoid-choosing-delivery-cat-fiddle-6018044.html

I recently ordered 2 cheesecakes from them during a 2 for 1 promotion, and my delivery was scheduled for sometime between 8 and 10pm today. Already tired after work but have been waiting since 8pm...

I'll let pictures do the talking 👇

The delivery person at 9.10pm said the supplier missed out something, so she'll be late. Okay fine. I assumed the person was driving.

Between 9.40 to 9.50pm, she decided to go home with my cakes because the bus took too long to arrive. LOL WTF.

Frankly I'm feeling rather uncomfortable with everything that happend thus far, so I shall ask for a refund but TBH, I'm more pissed about the fact that I could have turned in a few hours earlier and... to think 2 of my cakes were riding on a bus and now spending an entire night at one complete stranger's house??????

I subsequently browsed through Cat & The Fiddle's Facebook page and wow, my god. There are already so many bad reviews about the quality of its delivery services and it seems that the company chose to do nothing about it. So I'm sharing my bad experience here to warn people that unless you want to spend an additional $8.90, as well as 3 to 4 hours waiting your ass off, you are better off ordering from elsewhere.

Consumer watchdog issues alert against The Aisle Bridal over sudden closure

SINGAPORE - Singapore's consumer watchdog has issued an alert against The Aisle Bridal after receiving 26 complaints since November last year over its sudden closure.

Brides- and grooms-to-be have lost at least $56,770 in prepayments to The Aisle Bridal Boutique and The Aisle Bridal Studio, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) said in a statement on Thursday (Jan 31).

The 26 complaints were made between Nov 7 last year and Thursday.

Consumers claimed that the bridal boutique's previous owners and representatives had become uncontactable all of a sudden.

Then, they were told that a new company had taken over the premises of The Aisle Bridal, and they would have to pay an additional amount of between $900 and $2,250 to proceed with the original wedding packages they had signed up for.

The registered office address of The Aisle Bridal is at Townerville at 59 McNair Road.

Full story at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/consumer-watchdog-issues-alert-against-the-aisle-bridal-over-sudden-closure

Deserves the occasional bump for awareness.

Blacklisted: For You Wedding Services

S’pore wedding business takes S$14,000 advance from couple, shuts down 2 weeks later

The gist of it is as follows:

– Couple hires For You for their wedding, happening in a month’s time.

– Previously agreed in writing to cough up an 80 per cent downpayment to the company ahead of his wedding.

– Two weeks ago, met the boss of For You with his assistant and paid a sum of S$9,100, taking the total he had paid to the company to S$14,000.

– Now, the boss and his assistant are both uncontactable.

We have tried contacting For You Wedding Services Pte Ltd, but it appears their number has been cancelled.

https://mothership.sg/2018/07/wedding-money-run-away/

An obvious bait and switch tactic.........the company creates a fictional position with attractive remuneration to entice the desperate job seeker, subsequently when the catch is reeled in it simply announces the position has been taken up and offers the poor dude something else completely different with way worse conditions attached.

Jobseeker conned into interviews for financial consultant position

I saw the job posting on Jobstreet regarding this telecommunications company seeking to hire a business development executive – with both basic and commission pay. And eventually the recruiter from an agency arranged the interview for me.

Monday I went down once to meet the CTO, Tuesday yet again and he provided feedback to the recruiter that he would like to offer me the position. The next day I could sign the letter of offer after meeting the CEO.

Because of this, I turned down two interviews which may have landed me jobs after looking around for a month.

End up yesterday, after meeting them I was ask to role play with the CEO for 40 mins. After the role play, the CEO said they needed to discuss about my application for the role.

In the end I didn’t get to sign anything; I felt cheated, not to mention having wasted my time and effort to go down to their office for 3 days in a row at Raffles Place – Singapore Land Tower.

Today, the recruiter got back to me saying that they are interested to hire me. But it is a totally different package whereby during the first 3 months, there shall be no basic salary and it is purely commission based. Only after confirmation will a basic monthly salary of $3000 be paid out.

I have family commitment with one kid. I have bills to pay, my kid is still young at only three plus years old. Though my spouse is working, I would need to get employed quickly if not the burden will rest on my spouse alone.

How would I be able to survive without a salary? Who will pay for my transport expenses? And meals’ expenses if the client wishes to meet at Starbucks to listen about the company's products? Who is going to bear the cost? And it didn’t mention that they will reimburse me for my transport or any other expenses as well.

I would like to caution jobseekers to stay away from this company called ‘VTalkers’.

You have been warned.

Best Regards

Joseph

http://www.transitioning.org/2018/06/21/jobseeker-conned-into-interviews-for-financial-consultant-position/

Chinatown People’s Park Complex moneychanger cheated old woman

Earlier this week, on the the 18th of June, my mom headed to a money changer in People’s Park Complex (Chinatown), and was cheated of $500 at Haji Rahmathuliah (#01-K95B). A police report was made and an investigation is currently ongoing.

She entered this ?!#%^ money changer and was welcomed by a man who was apparently extremely “nice, friendly and helpful”. He brought her to the side where there was a corner counter and asked her what was the rate she was seeking. My mom then showed him my message that stated “If you change SGD$1450 you get IDR 14871200”. He ended up giving a lower rate but my mom decided to go ahead and change with him because he seemed really nice. Little did she know, she was walking right into his trap 😭.

My mom had $600 on hand (6 x $100 notes) and went to withdraw $850 (17 x $50 notes) from the nearest ATM. She then counted all her money before handing them over to the guy.

What went down...

- Mom gave the $1450 she had on hand to the guy at the corner counter, where you can't see when he counts the money (as she recalled).

- Someone then came beside my mom and changed money with the same guy, which distracted her attention. (So weird though... like why would you attend to another customer when you’re presently already attending to one ???)

- Guy then diverts his attention back to my mom and tells her that she did not give him enough money.

- Mom said this can’t be because she was very sure that she handed him $1450.

- Guy refuted and insisted that she did not give him enough.

- Mom then asked “how much???”

- Guy couldn’t give a number and told my mom to “count by yourself”.

- Mom counted and noticed that the stash was missing $500 because 5 x $100 notes were missing. He only returned her $950 out of $1450 (1 x $100 note & 17 x $50 notes).

- Mom then swore and confirmed that she gave him $1450 but guy continued to refute things and told my mom she could watch the CCTV footage if she so desired. Another man from the money changer next door came over to persuade her to watch the CCTV footage as well.

- Mom refused and insisted that he makes a police report.

- Guy ignored my mom and continued rambling on about checking the CCTV. Man from the other money changer then walks away.

- Mom told them to call the police again and again but they refused saying that they’ll only call the police if they’ve no choice.

- Mom said that he finally agreed to call the police. However after 20 mins, the police still didn’t show up even though he claimed he had already called.

- Mom then decided to call the police on her own.

- Police came, took her statement and told her that they’ll hear from them in the next 5 days.

(Policemen who viewed the CCTV footage told my mom that they couldn’t see anything. Lol no wonder those evil men were so quick to ask my mom to view the cctv footage cuz it’s angled in a way that you can’t see shit )

Sighhh guysss please do not patronise this money changer in People’s Park Complex (#01-K95B)!!! The men were dishonest and took advantage of my mom. I’m sharing this to raise awareness that asshole money changers do exist in Singapore and to not trust these men entirely.

Also... PLEASE REMEMBER TO COUNT YOUR MONEY BEFORE YOU HAND THEM OVER AND ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE FULL VIEW OF THE MONEY HANDLING PROCESS!!! Oh and do not put so much trust in them like what my mom did 😰

SPREAD THE WORD TOO!!! THE WORLD DOESN’T NEED ANYMORE EVIL HUMANS LIKE THE MEN AT HAJI RAHMATHULIAH 😠😠

Guys.. my mom ain’t that old to be considered elderly. More like middle aged 😅

Source: https://www.facebook.com/cassquek/posts/10156430286335912

Beware of this company: 4mind ventures Pte Ltd

Just wanna share this with you guys since I am pretty f*cking pissed at this company for wasting my time by not being honest about their motives and being shady as hell.

4mind ventures Pte Ltd

Here goes:

So a few weeks ago, I received a call from some random number asking me for Mr xxx . I said no you've gotten the wrong number, and he said "oh sorry.. this person was tied to this number in our database etc etc. , but may I ask if you would be interested in answering a few questions on cost of living in Singapore?"

I wasn't doing much at the time so I said "ya sure" and he proceeded to ask questions like my income range, if I felt a 2nd income stream was important to keep up with the rising costs of living in sg etc etc. It was pretty short, maybe 2-3 mins in total and after that he said thank you and the call ended. Obviously I didn't think much of it afterwards.

Earlier this week I got a call from yet another number, asking if I remembered doing a survey recently, and after i said "ya I think so", they told me I was chosen as one of the 20 winners who participated in the survey and would therefore be entitled to a $100 Capital Mall voucher. I was like 'ok great', and they asked if I could come down sometime during the week to collect it. However the only available collection times were at 3pm,5pm and 7pm.

I said 7pm would be good since I could come by after work, and they said ok they'll whatsapp me the address and details which were provided as such :

I already received the message, however they kept calling me everyday asking if I'll be coming down soon, to which I replied 'yes I will'. They would ring me 2-3 times if I didn't pick up. As I was pretty busy at work, I didn't think too much of it and just confirmed the appointment.

So I eventually went over a few days ago to the address provided. It was a rather small office, and the receptionist gave me a form to fill out, which asked for my personal details including my annual income and how many credit cards I had applied for and from which banks etc....... basically financial information.

I queried why I had to do so and they said it was to register guests who came in so they could properly track who they've given the voucher to or some bullshit along those lines. Being tired after work and wanting to keep this short so I could return home, I therefore complied. Afterwards, I followed this lady to the 14th floor of the same building (naively thinking the voucher was stored upstairs or something).

Upon reaching, another lady took the form I just completed and requested for my IC to verify that the information provided was correct. I was on a phone call with a colleague regarding some urgent work stuff at that point in time, so I just handed it over to her while I continued conversing on the phone. Shortly after, she confirmed that the particulars were indeed correct and proceeded to show me some numbers. There were about 12 - 16 sets of 4 digit numbers I believe, and she said that if the last 4 digits of any of my credit card numbers matched with one of those supplied, I would be rewarded with an additional $50 Capitaland voucher.

Checked and none match, and she was like "ok no problem". She proceeded to give me a sticker to paste on my shirt. I was starting to sense something was amiss because of the this and also because I peeked at what existed beyond the front desk, and lo and behold - a typical MLM setup was in place : a bunch of tables and chairs with 'relationship managers' sitting down with potential clients discussing business, add to these posters of properties in the background and whatnot.

As expected, their managers were all dressed up nicely in full suits, and the girls wore thick makeup. I was introduced to a manager, and she enquired about how I knew of them, to which I replied "You guys said I'm here to collect a voucher" with a very neutral look. I think she could tell I was beginning to sense the bullshit. She replied "Ok no worries we'll get to that" , and asked if I was interested in asset management and stuff, to which I replied no and she asked why. I stuck to my line, repeating "I'm just not interested".

Then another guy came out of nowhere and gestured we can move to the conference room. I was thinking of leaving at that point, however she said I just agreed to attend a 15 minute talk, which was apparently cited as a clause in the form I filled up when I first arrived. Honestly I don't remember seeing it on the form, but I just followed her anyways because I was growing curious as to what kind of horseshit this whole setup was really up to.

Entered a small room with about 5 'clients' including myself, each with a relationship manager sitting beside them. At this point in time some older looking guy starts making presentation of slides while being all friendly and asking for our names etc. Then he popped typical MLM questions such as "Do you wanna grow your income? Do you wanna be rich" etc etc. and got us all to answer "yes" every single time (theory of commitment and consistency at play here). As it turned out.... this was some real estate investment scheme. They presented condos that they invested in saying they paid all cash upfront without obtaining a no bank loan yada yada.