Less than a year after being released from prison, a jobless man claimed to be a rich “sugar daddy” to cheat three 17-year-old girls into doing sexual favours with him for money.
If you’re unaware, sugar daddies aren’t fathers who sold sugar— they’re people who have reached financial success (usually older men), and they do not have the time to build a more natural relationship and thus use their wealth to buy their relationship. They are not shy about spending lots of money to keep their significant other happy and as a result, tend to attract more superficial women or women who are more desperate for the cash.
Unfortunately for these three girls, Tan Chip Huat, 49, was merely posing as one and as a result, they never received any payment. In fact, one of them was duped into lending the man money and coerced into finding girls to keep him company.
That’s one UNO reverse card.
Tan has since pleaded guilty to seven counts of cheating, dishonestly obtaining services, criminal intimidation and intentionally causing alarm on 25 July 2022. Another 13 similar charges will be considered when he returns for sentencing in August 2022.
Tan has cheated a total of 10 victims out of more than S$72,000, with the three teens amongst them. Their identities are protected by gag order.
Tan, who has previously been convicted for cheating in 2005 and 2013, had been released from prison in 2020.
Tan knew about his financial difficulties and had no intentions of paying the victims, but still led them on because he was “having fun”, said the prosecutor.
How It All Started
Tan would pose as a high-flyer in the finance industry who earned between S$50,000 to S$60,000 a month, court documents stated. He also pretended to be part of a family business. Tan claimed to live in a luxurious condominium with a personal chauffeur and told one victim that he showered his exes with expensive gifts.
In fact, he was unemployed during the offences and was working as a cleaner previously, bringing home less than S$2,000 a month.
Tan met his first victim, who was identified as V3 in court documents, through online classifieds website Locanto on 4 Jan 2021. The girl responded to Tan’s post, where he was offering S$5,000 a month for a “sugar baby.” As she needed the money for her school fees, she took the bait.
Tan offered to cover V3’s tuition fees at an arts school which amounted to S$20,000, in exchange for sexual services. She accepted the offer. They subsequently met at a hotel on 5 Jan 2021 and had sex. Tan then told her he would pay her half the amount first as he needed to keep some spare cash.
He told V3 the bank transfer would take effect on 10 Jan 2021 and also convinced her to lend him S$400.
Alas, when V3 checked her account on 10 Jan 2021, the money was nowhere to be seen. Tan predictably gave an array of excuses when he was confronted over the next few days. He also continued asking V3 to meet up or introduce her friends to him for further favors.
During a phone conversation on 8 Jan 2021, Tan shouted at V3 when she said she could not find anyone to accompany him that night. Tan was aware that one of V3’s close friends, another 17-year-old victim—identified as V5 in court documents, was working as a social escort. He threatened to expose V5 to the police unless V3 got V5 to transfer him S$500 as a loan.
Not wanting her friend’s reputation to be damaged, V3 transferred the S$500 herself without her friend’s knowledge. Tan said he would repay both the loan as well as the payment of S$20,000 he owed V3.
Of course he…didn’t.
Threatened to Beat up Mother and Child
Faced with Tan’s continued pestering for companionship, V3 asked another friend—who was identified as V4 in court documents—if she would be willing to have sex with him for S$1,000.
V4, who was a desperate single teen mom with an infant son, agreed as she needed the money. She met Tan on 8 Jan 2021, and after doing the deed, V4 did not see the money three days later and confronted Tan, who told her he would pay an extra S$100 to compensate for the delay.
V4 complained to V3 about the delay, saying that she really needed the money and V3 decided to transfer the S$1,100 to her friend out of her own pocket as she thought she would be reimbursed by Tan.
V3 really seems like a very good friend after all.
Unfortunately, when Tan learnt about this, he became upset with V3 as she had taken money from her father to make the payment and was worried he might become suspicious.
Tan then demanded V4 return the money to V3, threatening to look up her address and harm her and her baby if she did not do as told. Both girls then arranged to temporarily transfer some money to V3 to make it seem like she had repaid the S$1,100, in order to calm Tan down.
Threatening to Withhold Payment
Tan, at this point still owed money to V3 and V4, started to threaten V3 that he would withhold the payments unless she found someone (again) to keep him company.
At this point of the story, you would think that V3 would have gone to the police but in a state of panic, she approached her friend, the previously named V5 (the social escort friend). Telling her that Tan would pay S$3,000 for sexual services, V5 agreed and together with V3, went to meet Tan on 13 Jan 2021.
Like previous victims, V5 unsurprisingly did not receive the payment she was promised. The prosecutor said that V3 did not benefit in any way from introducing her friends to Tan and that all three of them never received any of the payments they were owed. He added that Tan also owed another sum of at least S$2,500 that she lent him for his personal expenses.
Cheating Ways Continued Despite Arrest
Tan was arrested on 21 Jan 2021, but continued to cheat women out of their money up till August 2021. One of the victims, a 25-year-old woman, whom Tan met through Locanto in early May 2021, was cheated out of more than S11,600. The other, a 23-year-old woman who worked part-time as a social escort, was cheated out of $10,000.
The prosecutor said that Tan would likely be sentenced to more than 10 years’ jail under regular imprisonment, noting that Tan was a persistent offender who reoffended less than a year after being released from prison in 2020 and his methods of deception has evolved over time.
He also said that if Tan had actually paid the 17-year-old victims for sex, he would have been charged with obtaining underage sex.
Those who cheat and dishonestly obtain services can be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.
The penalty for criminal intimidation is up to two years’ jail, a fine or both.
Those who intentionally cause alarm to another person can be jailed up to six months, fined up to S$5,000 or both.
Featured Image: kenchiro168 / Shutterstock.com