Father & son jailed 10 weeks after flying from China to S'pore to assault M'sian man over failed S$18,000 investment

Hoping to secure Singapore work passes, a father-son duo from China sold their family car and took bank loans to invest S$18,000 in Singapore businesses run by a 35-year-old Malaysian.

However, the investment turned bad and the work pass applications were unsuccessful.

They then flew from China to Singapore, located the 35-year-old and assaulted him in a mall carpark.

They each got 10 weeks' jail after pleading guilty to the assault, The Straits Times reported.

Sought work passes

According to court documents, in April 2026, 25-year-old Gao Zhenhan and his 50-year-old father, Gao Yong, had hoped to open a shop in Singapore.

The Gaos reside in China.

They reached out to a Singaporean contact to apply for the necessary work passes. The contact then introduced the son to the victim, a 35-year-old Malaysian national.

He is an investor in various food businesses in Singapore.

The contact informed the son that the 35-year-old was looking for investors into his Singapore businesses.

Sold family car and took loans to invest S$18,000

In May 2026, the son and the victim began corresponding with each other over WeChat about investing in one of the victim's ventures.

During the discussions, the victim sent his personal particulars, including his identification number and photographs of himself, to the son.

The victim invited the son to invest in one of his beverage shops located in Kent Ridge Medical Centre. In order to raise capital, the Gaos sold their family car and took on bank loans.

They then invested S$18,000.

Work permit applications were unsuccessful

Later, the victim informed the Gaos that he had applied for the work permits, but the applications were unsuccesful.

The Gaos then requested for their investment to be refunded, but the victim did not do so.

Sometime before Oct. 14, 2026, the Gaos decided to fly to Singapore to confront the victim.

Located victim at mall food court

On Oct. 14, at about 2pm, they arrived in Singapore. They proceeded to the Kent Ridge Medical Centre shop to look for the victim.

Unable to locate him, the two spent the night rough sleeping in the vicinity. They had not booked an accommodation for their time in Singapore.

The next morning on Oct. 15, they again attempted to look for the victim at the shop but were unsuccessful.

They then took a train to VivoCity to have a meal. At the mall, the Gaos noticed the victim working at a stall in a food court at the mall, seemingly by coincidence.

They approached the victim but as they did so, the victim walked towards his car in the carpark. The Gaos followed him.

The assault

As the victim arrived at his car, the father ran up towards him and swung his hand towards the victim's head. He then grabbed the victim around his upper body and pushed him inside his car into the passenger seat.

The father pressed the victim against the seat to prevent him from escaping, with his son joining in afterwards.

With the victim restrained, the Gaos confronted him about their investment. This went on for about one-and-a-half minutes.

The Gaos then punched the victim numerous times.

The father later tied the victim's neck to the headrest of the seat using a long rope. They then resumed punching the victim.

The assault was captured by CCTV cameras in the carpark.

The Gaos demanded the victim repay about 200,000 yuan (about S$38,300).

The victim refused and proposed S$5,000 instead, but was rejected by the father. The victim offered S$10,000, but was again rejected.

Arrested

Two security officers later approached the car and knocked on the door. They later called the police and alerted them about the assault.

The Gaos were arrested soon after.

The victim sustained abrasions on his neck and superficial injuries on his face, neck and shoulders. He also felt pain where he was punched.

They were each charged for voluntarily causing hurt, which is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to S$5,000, or both.

The prosecution sought eight to 10 weeks' jail for the son, and 12 to 14 weeks for the father.

The prosecution argued that it was the father who initiated the assault, thereby placing his culpability above that of his son.