Man who sold real Rolex thinking it was fake: Why was he jailed when victim suffered no losses?

A man tried to cheat a watch retailer by exchanging a Rolex timepiece he believed was counterfeit for three other Rolexes.

The Rolex GMT Saru, which Italian national Singh Deepak, 24, previously bought for around €60,000 (S$89,600), turned out to be real.

So even though the retailer did not suffer any losses, Singh was jailed for seven months on April 20 for attempted cheating.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Teh said this case involved an “impossible attempt”, as there was no actual loss caused.

The Straits Times explains what an “impossible attempt” means and why Singh was jailed.

Why jail him when no losses were suffered?

Singh pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted cheating.

Another charge of using a forged passport was taken into consideration during sentencing.

Singh had flown to Singapore in November 2025 to sell the Rolex to a watch retailer in Bencoolen Street.

The court heard that there are purportedly only 20 authentic Rolex GMT Saru timepieces in circulation. One such watch is usually worth around $120,000.

After agreeing to exchange the watch for three other Rolexes, Singh handed a forged soft copy of his passport to the shop director for registration purposes.

He did so to escape criminal liability and any possible taxes that might be incurred during the sale.

Lawyer Cory Wong, a director at Invictus Law Corporation, said the prosecution had made it clear from the evidence that Singh had lied about his identity while selling the watch.

Said Mr Wong: “It is therefore likely that had the vendor known that the offender had lied about his identity, this deal would not have gone through. This in itself already constitutes an offence of cheating by personation.”

Lawyer Tan Su from Meritus Law said that under Singapore law, actual loss is not required for an offence of cheating to be made out.

“The law is concerned with the conduct and intent of the accused, not whether the plan ultimately succeeded,” said Ms Tan.

Mr Wong added: “This prosecution serves the wider deterrent effect that persons should not be reckless about trying their luck at cheating others just because no losses were suffered or that they can simply buy their way out by making restitution after being caught.

“Otherwise, this would incentivise offenders to keep on trying their luck.”

What is an ‘impossible attempt’?

Mr Wong said this is when the full offence cannot be completed due to a legal technicality, like when the item that was believed to be fake turned out to be genuine.

An “impossible attempt” does not mean one is innocent, he added.

Ms Tan said the courts have defined “impossible attempts” as situations that fulfil two key requirements.

The first is whether the accused person had a specific intention to commit a criminal act.

The second is whether he took sufficient steps to further his intention to commit the act.

How tough is it to prove intent in an attempted cheating case?

Ms Tan said it can be challenging to prove the accused person’s intent in any criminal prosecution, as intent concerns the individual’s state of mind.

In cases of attempted cheating, the intent of accused persons “can be inferred from their conduct, their statements to the police or the surrounding circumstances”, she said. “This can include steps taken to conceal their identity, falsify documents or misrepresent facts.”

In Singh’s case, Mr Wong said the cheating intent was clear because he used a fake identity, took steps to procure it and had a getaway plan.

Singh ignored the retailer’s calls and eventually said he would return to the shop. Instead, he booked a flight to Italy and was arrested at Changi Airport that day.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Singapore blocks 6 websites flagged for potential use in hostile information campaigns