SINGAPORE: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has obtained court orders against two immigration consultancy firms and their operator for engaging in unfair trade practices.
VED Immigrations and SAVA Immigrations, as well as a third firm, Paul Immigrations, misled consumers into believing that there was an urgent need to apply for Singapore permanent residency (PR) and falsely guaranteed that applications made through them would be successful.
In a media release on Monday (Aug 11), CCCS said that the “mastermind” behind the firms’ trade practices was one Mr Cheng Yong Teck.
Investigations into the firms began after the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received several complaints regarding Paul Immigrations’ sales tactics.
CASE president Melvin Yong said on Facebook that the organisation had received 183 complaints about Paul Immigrations, beginning in January 2020.
Consumers complained that they were subjected to “undue pressure” to enter into agreements and that the firm made misleading and false claims about their chances of obtaining permanent residency.
CASE continued to receive complaints against the firm even after it signed a voluntary compliance agreement in September 2021 to stop its misleading practices.
“Subsequently, CASE referred the matter to CCCS for investigation,” Mr Yong said.
After CCCS found that Mr Cheng had ceased Paul Immigrations’ operations but resumed similar practices through VED Immigrations, the focus of its investigations shifted to the latter firm.
Then, investigations found that Mr Cheng was also operating through another business, SAVA Immigrations.
All three immigration consultancy firms’ websites included forms that allowed potential customers to check their chances of obtaining permanent residency.
According to CCCS, instead of receiving results online after filling out the forms, these individuals would receive phone calls inviting them for “free consultations”.
“During these consultation sessions, sales staff would make unsubstantiated claims about rapidly changing PR rules and intense competition from other applicants, to try to persuade customers to apply as soon as possible,” said Singapore’s consumer watchdog.
“The sales staff would then make baseless guarantees of PR application approval if customers engaged their services.
“CCCS found no reasonable basis for the businesses to make such claims or guarantees, except to close the deals.”
Customers paid up to S$10,000 (US$7,790) for such services.
Investigations revealed that Mr Cheng was responsible for directing the operations of these businesses and was deliberate in implementing the misleading trade practices.
When Paul Immigrations was investigated, Mr Cheng continued to operate through the other businesses to evade detection.
CCCS said: “Cheng personally wrote scripts on what staff members needed to do and say to prospective customers, monitored their sales tactics through closed-circuit television footage and implemented a punishment-and-reward system to ensure that his staff members followed his methods.”
A district court on Jul 22 ordered Mr Cheng, VED Immigrations and SAVA Immigrations to cease the unfair trade practices; publish details of the court orders on online platforms used for marketing their services and in major newspapers in Singapore; inform all potential customers about the court orders before entering into contracts with them; and notify CCCS about any changes to their business structures, as well as to Mr Cheng’s employment status and his control or ownership of his businesses.
CCCS said that this is its first court action against a person who used new business entities to conceal unfair trade practices.
Its chief executive Alvin Koh said that consumers’ insecurities and unfamiliarity with Singapore’s immigration system were exploited by the three firms, misleading them into paying substantial sums of money.
“The mastermind attempted to evade detection by closing the initial business while continuing the same practices through other businesses,” said Mr Koh.
“CCCS has taken court action in this case and will not hesitate to do so in similar cases.”
