
Collector's Costly Amulet Mistake: Woman Loses S$64,000 Lawsuit Against Seller
2025-09-19
Author: Rajesh
A High-Stakes Gamble Gone Wrong
In a jaw-dropping legal battle, a Singaporean woman learned the hard way that not all that glitters is gold—or even diamonds. Chang Siew Kheng, an avid amulet collector, purchased six supposedly "super rare" Thai amulets for a staggering S$64,600 (around US$49,900) from a local middleman, Shawn Foo, with hopes of striking it rich.
The Illusion of Value
However, Chang's dreams of profit quickly turned to despair when not a single offer came rolling in for her amulets, which she listed for sale starting January 2024. Claiming that the trinkets were far from rare and didn't even contain diamonds—just glass—she decided to take legal action. She accused Foo of misleading her with false claims about the amulets’ rarity and future value.
Court Ruling: A Case of Bad Investment
On September 19, the district court delivered a verdict that dashed Chang's hopes. Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed her lawsuit, stating that she failed to provide convincing evidence of any fraudulent misrepresentation by Foo. The court ended up categorizing Chang's predicament as nothing more than a bad investment.
What Went Wrong?
Despite her keen interest and experience in the amulet market, Chang's case crumbled under scrutiny. The judge noted a lack of clarity on the authenticity of the amulets, emphasizing that there's no formal certification protocol for such items. Additionally, both Chang and Foo had actually visited the temple in Thailand where the monk, Kruba Krissana, had crafted the amulets, making it challenging to claim that they were counterfeit.
The Diamond Dilemma
The issue of the supposed diamonds also fell flat in court. The judge remarked that the so-called "diamond-like crystals" were a minimal part of two amulets and, importantly, didn’t impact Chang’s original decision to buy them. The only gemstone report Chang presented confirmed that these crystals were not diamonds at all.
Lessons Learned
As the dust settles on this expensive blunder, the judge concluded, "If the claimant had purchased the amulets as an enthusiast to add to her collection, she still has them and suffers no loss." This case serves as a cautionary tale for collectors everywhere: not every shiny object has genuine value, and understanding the market is crucial before making such hefty investments.
The Aftermath
As for Chang, her attempts to get Foo to buy back the amulets went unanswered. One must wonder what the future holds for her as she navigates the murky waters of the amulet market, reflecting on a costly lesson learned the hard way.