DETERMINED to get his daughter a place in a reputable all-girls' school in Bukit Timah, suspended lawyer Tan Sok Ling lied - first to a police officer, and then to the school's vice-principal - that he was staying within one kilometre of the school.

He even paid $1,600 a month to use the address of a condominium apartment as his mailing address even though he did not stay there.

He would have gotten away with it too - had the owner of the apartment not rented it out to a couple who also registered their daughter at the same school.

The two girls are still in the school.

The details of his deception, which happened in 2003, emerged at a district court on Thursday when he was convicted of cheating.

Already suspended for a year for accounting irregularities, Tan, 40, is now most likely to be struck off the rolls.

Lawyers said that the Court of Three Judges - Singapore's highest authority on lawyers - had almost invariably struck off lawyers convicted of forgery and cheating.

Deputy Public Prosecutor James Lee told the court how Tan almost got away with cheating the police and the school.

Tan, who was suspended from practice in March for breaching accounting regulations at his now-defunct law firm, found a rental apartment in 2003.

But he told the owner that he would not be occupying it and was willing to pay $1,600 monthly just so he could use the address of the unit.

After that, he went to the police and reported a change of address so he could use the new one to apply to the school for his daughter, who was subsequently successful in the application.

However, unknown to Tan, the owner of the apartment had rented it to new tenants who also applied to the same school for their daughter.

The incident surfaced in court after Tan was charged with forgery.

Separate investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department revealed that he had forged stamp duty certificates between Sept 2004 and Feb last year in order to make a quick buck from his clients.

He would inflate the amount of payable stamp duties on the certificate and pocket the difference. For example, he told his client to pay $13,500 when the duties came to only $8,100.

Tan's lawyer, Mr Peter Low of Colin Ng & Partners, on Thursday urged the court to be lenient as his client was 'extremely remorseful'.

He was a first-time offender without any previous convictions and had cooperated fully with the police.

Mr Low added that Tan had returned the money to his client who had found out about the forgery.

Tan, a sole proprietor, had committed forgery because he was in a 'tight cashflow' situation', said his lawyer.

Tan will return to court and be sentenced on Nov 29.

For lying to the police, he could be jailed up to six months. For forgery, he could be jailed up to seven years.

Is this article useful to you?