A Singaporean woman who spent more than S$64,000 on Thai amulets and later tried to sue the seller for fraud has lost her case in court. The district court ruled that the failed resale attempt was a matter of poor investment judgment rather than fraudulent misrepresentation.
The case involved Ms Chang Siew Kheng, an avid amulet collector, and Mr Shawn Foo, a middleman who trades amulets in Singapore. According to court documents, Ms Chang purchased six amulets from Mr Foo in May and June 2018, paying a total of S$64,600. The amulets were described as rare pieces made by a respected monk, Kruba Krissana, in Thailand.
Ms Chang claimed that Mr Foo represented the amulets as “super rare” items that would appreciate in value and that two of them contained real diamonds. Relying on these representations, she said, she purchased the trinkets as collectibles and potential investments.
By January 2024, however, Ms Chang concluded that the amulets had little market value. She put them up for sale but received no offers. Instead, she faced skepticism from potential buyers online, with one accusing her of being a scammer. When her attempts to offload the items failed, she asked Mr Foo to buy them back at the original purchase price, but he declined.
She then launched a lawsuit, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and seeking redress from the court.
In his defense, Mr Foo denied making any false claims. He said Ms Chang had specifically requested old and rare amulets made by Kruba Krissana and that he sourced them on that basis. Both parties had even traveled together to the monk’s temple in Thailand to verify authenticity.
District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the suit, stressing that Ms Chang failed to provide evidence that the amulets were fake or misrepresented. “At the end of the day, the claimant not being able to sell the amulets at a higher price than the price she had paid for is simply a case of bad investment on her part,” he said in his ruling, released on September 19.
The judge noted that Ms Chang did not define what made an amulet “rare” or “collectible,” nor did she establish that any recognized system existed for certification. Unlike diamonds or gemstones, there is no standardized authority or valuation body for amulets. He added that the only way to authenticate such items would be through the monk who created them—and in this case, both parties had met Kruba Krissana at his temple.
On the issue of diamonds, Ms Chang produced a gemological report for only one amulet, which confirmed that the crystals embedded in it were not diamonds but diamond-like glass. Judge Chiah ruled that this detail was immaterial, as Ms Chang had not shown that the presence of diamonds was the basis for her purchase decision.
Furthermore, the court held that Ms Chang had not suffered any measurable financial loss. “If the claimant had purchased the amulets as an enthusiast to add to her collection of amulets, she still has the amulets. She suffers no loss,” the judge said. “If she had purchased them for investment purposes, there is no evidence that her investment has diminished in value.”
The court also highlighted that Ms Chang waited more than five years after the purchases to raise her complaint, weakening her claim.
Ultimately, the lawsuit was dismissed, underscoring the risks faced by collectors who purchase niche collectibles in the hope of future profits. In this case, the judge concluded, Ms Chang’s misfortune was not the result of fraud but simply an investment gone wrong.
