Man testifies he felt cheated, intimidated by Raymond Ng in vending machine case; Ng says he’s lying

He said he did not know what to do after receiving the agreement, so he just read it and acknowledged that he had read it.

He said he did not agree that he would have been deemed to have agreed with it just by reading it.

Mr Chua said many other co-owners in the group were puzzled by the document and began to talk inside the group.

“After some questioning in the group or some discussion, there were a few instances whereby Mr Raymond Ng would turn aggressive,” said Mr Chua.

“He would, to the effect … raise his displeasure with people who questioned about the document and who raised their concerns,” he said.

He said he became more and more distressed, thinking why Ng acted in this manner and feeling a little intimidated by his actions.

The concerns raised included how the vending machine operated and how much revenue it generated, said Mr Chua.

“From the onset of my participation in the group till today actually I received zero dollars and zero cents,” he said. “I assume there was no money that the machine, like, generated. That was my reasonable assumption.”

He said that when some members of the group asked for a refund, Ng expressed his displeasure again and threatened to void their ownership completely.

This would result in them being kicked out of the WhatsApp chat group and was “financially disastrous” to them, said Mr Chua.

He added that he and other attendees at the presentation were urged to make a decision quickly, because the locations were in high demand and they needed to act in order not to miss out.

He said Ng termed it a “breach of contract” so it became the fault of the co-owners for losing their investment.

Mr Chua said the people who had their ownership voided “felt cheated”. Those who remained in the group felt even more intimidated and did not know whether it was just a matter of time before their ownership was similarly voided.

There were also no concrete updates in the group about how the machine was doing or earning, and when the returns would be paid out, said Mr Chua.

He said he would not have invested if he had been told during the presentation that he did not actually have co-ownership.

“What I understood is, as a co-owner of a coffee machine, which is a physical thing that is dispensing a real thing meaning cups of coffee, then the business model sounded sound enough to me to take part in,” said Mr Chua.

He said other than the financial loss, he was affected psychologically by the intimidation by Ng.

He claimed Ng would threaten to sue for defamation if he or other co-owners made out that he had cheated or scammed them.

The prosecution tendered a police report lodged by Mr Chua late at night on Nov 28, 2020. 

NG CROSS-EXAMINES WITNESS

Ng, who is representing himself in the case, opened his cross-examination by telling Mr Chua that his duty was to the court and not to the police, prosecutor or Ng.

He then asked about Mr Chua’s educational levels. An exchange occurred where Mr Chua asked why this was necessary and Ng told him it was not for him to ask this. At one point, Mr Chua also asked Ng to speak “with courtesy” and the judge got Ng to move on.

Mr Chua said he had a diploma in mass communications from Ngee Ann Polytechnic as well as a real estate salesperson licence.

Ng then asked him if he had a basic understanding of contract law and used an example of house renovation to ask if Mr Chua knew that he could be seen to agree to a contract if he paid a deposit and agreed to a renovation timeline even if there was no signed contract.

Mr Chua responded that there were elements that had to be satisfied in the forming of a valid contract. However, he acknowledged that a signature was not absolutely necessary for a contract to be valid.

Ng also asked Mr Chua if he had ever had private meetings or personal talks with him other than in the WhatsApp group or group Zoom sessions.

Mr Chua said he did not, and Ng continued questioning him.

At one point, Ng declared that he honestly thought the next witness could go home. He later explained that he would take the rest of Tuesday and potentially part of Wednesday to cross-examine Mr Chua.

Ng then said that since all the allegations Mr Chua made against him were not through verbal communication, it had to be through the WhatsApp group.

He asked Mr Chua to go through the WhatsApp log line by line and show which parts proved that he did what Mr Chua said he did.

The prosecutor objected and said it was not a fair question as the log in question had to firstly be identified before being placed before the witness for him to go through.

The judge said this would take time and asked Ng to cross-examine the witness on other areas.

On questioning by Ng, Mr Chua said he signed up for the scheme after the presentation. He said he was not presented with a receipt, invoice or order form.

Ng asked him to show evidence of his first payment via PayNow. Mr Chua said he was 100 per cent sure he paid it but that he was unable to produce the screenshot.

He said he believed he had it, but that it was in his old phone. He was unable to retrieve it as the bank account associated with the payment had been closed.

Ng repeatedly reminded Mr Chua to remember that he was on oath. He told him that he was very sure he had given Mr Chua an order form, despite Mr Chua denying this.

He then asked if Mr Chua had signed one when he made the alleged S$500 payment.

Mr Chua said he did. He said he kept a copy of it but later misplaced it.

Asked why he did not retain it, Mr Chua said his feeling of being cheated came only months after the signing of the form, during which he misplaced it.

Ng then asked him if he had signed up for the income potential or to co-own the coffee machine.

Mr Chua said both were equally important.

Ng then showed him Mr Chua’s police report and asked why the co-owning portion was not mentioned in it. He asserted that Mr Chua had signed up for the income.

Ng asked Mr Chua why he had an obligation to manage the machine for him if this was a “pure co-ownership contract”. Mr Chua responded that it was part of Ng’s business.

NG CLAIMS WITNESS WAS LYING

Ng later pointed to the police report lodged by Mr Chua and said Mr Chua had been lying on the stand when he said he had never met Ng in person before.

On the day Mr Chua lodged the police report, Ng said he had a private meeting with Mr Chua and Ng’s staff members and recorded the whole conversation.

He asked Mr Chua why he did not highlight this earlier. Mr Chua said this meeting did not pertain to the co-ownership opportunity nor was it to get him to sign up. Instead, the meeting came about because Mr Chua alerted some people and Ng’s staff alerted him to it.

The judge asked Mr Chua what the purpose of this meeting was.

“The meeting was meant to threaten me,” said Mr Chua. “And for the record, I also do have the recording of the video-conferencing.”

In the subsequent questioning, Ng pressed Mr Chua to “don’t think, just answer” multiple times.

The judge intervened several times. He told Ng he could put some points in submissions at the end of the trial.

At one point, Ng tried to talk over the judge and was told to wait and that he would have the opportunity to make his point.

“I scared I will forget,” he responded.

“So you want to put to him that he is lying,” asked Judge Lim, referring to Mr Chua.

“Not so fast. I need to have some foreplay first,” said Ng before quickly apologising for his choice of words.

Mr Chua had explained that the charges levied against Ng were cheating charges, so his frame of mind was on the first presentation he attended by Ng.

“You are fitting the evidence to the charge,” Ng said to Mr Chua.

“To be fair, he did not say that,” pointed out Judge Lim.

“My point is that right, when you give evidence right, why do you care what I’m being charged with?” Ng asked Mr Chua.

The judge tried to interject but Ng told him he had a different point to put to Mr Chua.

“He said it very clearly,” said Ng. “His thinking, come to the stand, based on the charge, he give evidence based on my charge. I put it to you, you are just framing your evidence to the charge you think I’m being charged with, because your evidence you gave just now indicates that.”

When Mr Chua did not respond immediately, Ng raised his voice: “Don’t think just answer!”

“Mr Ng, please behave yourself,” said Judge Lim. “The witness is entitled to take his time to answer your question.”

“Think of how to lie to me,” said Ng.

“Please do not behave in an unruly manner in court,” said the judge.

Mr Chua said he was not framing his evidence.

The court then broke for lunch. The trial continues with Ng set to continue cross-examining Mr Chua.

If convicted of cheating, Ng could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined per charge.