SINGAPORE — November 3, 2026
A former employee of Singapore socialite and entrepreneur Kim Lim has been sentenced to 22 months in prison after admitting to stealing valuable personal belongings from her employer, misusing a company credit card and driving without a valid licence while over the legal alcohol limit.
Tey Jing Wen, 33, was also fined S$3,500 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for two years from her release.
She pleaded guilty on October 8 to five charges, including theft as a servant, criminal breach of trust as an employee, driving without a valid licence and drink-driving. Another five charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.
The case has attracted attention because the theft involved a Patek Philippe watch valued at S$73,000, cash kept in red packets and other luxury belongings. It also exposed how an employee entrusted with significant access to an employer’s office, vehicle and company finances was able to misuse that trust over an extended period.
A trusted employee given access to the office safe
Tey joined Lim’s beauty, wellness and healthcare company, KL Health, in June 2022 as a human resources assistant.
She later rose through the company and became a regional coordinator and communicator, working closely with Lim on day-to-day administrative matters and overseeing aspects of the company’s overseas operations.
When Lim was away, other employees could approach Tey for instructions, which she would obtain from Lim when necessary.
That level of responsibility eventually extended to the company’s office safe.
In August 2024, after Lim’s personal assistant resigned, Lim gave Tey the combination to the safe. The safe contained some of Lim’s personal valuables.
Court proceedings later established that Tey became the only person able to access the safe after Lim forgot the combination.
It was from this safe that the Patek Philippe watch and cash were eventually taken.
The S$73,000 Patek Philippe watch
Between November 2024 and June 2025, Tey stole a Patek Philippe watch worth S$73,000 and red packets containing approximately S$8,000 in cash.
She subsequently sold the watch for only S$16,500 to a person who claimed to be a second-hand dealer.
According to court reports, she used part of the proceeds to repay some of the money she had spent through the company’s credit card, while the remaining proceeds and stolen cash were used for personal expenses.
The difference between the watch’s stated value and the eventual sale price was substantial: the S$16,500 sale represented less than a quarter of its S$73,000 valuation.
The case therefore involved not simply the loss of a luxury item, but also the misuse of access that had been entrusted to an employee as part of her professional responsibilities.
Company credit card spending exceeded S$19,000
The investigation also uncovered unauthorized use of a company credit card.
Between May 21 and May 26, 2025, Tey used the card on eight occasions for personal spending at nightlife establishments, with the transactions totaling S$19,191.12.
The card reportedly carried a monthly credit limit of S$200,000.
Court documents also included an allegation involving approximately S$10,101 worth of beverages obtained using the company card.
These transactions formed part of the criminal breach of trust and related offences considered by the court.
The case illustrates why internal controls around company payment cards can be particularly important when employees are given significant spending authority. A corporate card may be intended for legitimate business expenses, but unauthorized personal transactions can quickly become a serious legal matter when trust and company funds are involved.
Other luxury belongings were also taken
The missing Patek Philippe was not the only property involved.
Court documents cited in the AsiaOne report stated that other valuables belonging to Lim included a Christian Dior perfume valued at S$705, Tiffany & Co earrings worth S$3,600 and a Chanel cardigan valued at S$6,929.
Other items included a Bvlgari bracelet and additional bottles of luxury perfumes, bringing the value of the separately listed items to at least S$11,234.
The broader case is another example of how Singapore’s courts distinguish between an allegation during an investigation and an offence established through a guilty plea and sentencing.
For comparison, another recent Singapore theft case covered by WWC One Media involved a Civil Service College employee charged over an allegedly stolen Louis Vuitton wallet. That case was at a different procedural stage, demonstrating why charges should not automatically be treated as proof of guilt.
The case began with a drink-driving arrest
The theft investigation came to light after a separate incident involving a company vehicle.
At about 4.40am on June 3, 2025, a traffic police officer spotted Tey driving against the flow of traffic along Coleman Lane near City Hall.
She was stopped and subsequently failed a breathalyser test.
According to court reports, her breath alcohol reading was 46 microgrammes per 100ml of breath, above Singapore’s prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes.
She was also found to be driving without a valid Class 3 licence and without third-party insurance.
The vehicle had been rented by KL Health for designated drivers to use for company errands, and Tey had been responsible for keeping its keys.
Lim was overseas at the time.
Tey had taken the vehicle without Lim’s permission and driven to Tanjong Pagar for dinner before later going to a bar with a friend.
Her arrest prompted Lim to look more closely at her employee’s conduct.
Internal investigation uncovered wider problems
After the arrest, Lim noticed a decline in Tey’s work performance and initiated an internal investigation.
That review uncovered the unauthorized credit-card transactions and raised questions about missing property from the safe.
Police investigations subsequently established Tey’s involvement in the theft of the watch and cash.
The sequence is significant because the original police intervention concerned driving offences, while the subsequent investigation exposed separate financial and property offences.
Singapore courts can consider multiple offences together when determining an appropriate sentence, particularly where they reveal a broader pattern of misconduct.
What punishment did the court impose?
Tey was sentenced to:
- 22 months’ imprisonment
- S$3,500 fine
- Two-year driving disqualification after release
She had pleaded guilty to five charges, while another five charges were taken into consideration.
The prosecution had sought a jail term ranging from 22 months and one day to 26 months and one-and-a-half weeks, along with the fine and a longer driving disqualification.
The possible penalties for the offences were considerably more severe in isolation. Criminal breach of trust as an employee can carry imprisonment of up to 15 years and a fine, while theft as a servant can carry up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine, depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions.
The final sentence, however, reflects the court’s assessment of the offences and circumstances as a whole rather than the maximum penalty attached to any individual charge.
A wider lesson about workplace trust
The case goes beyond the value of a luxury watch.
Employees who handle company finances, access private property, manage keys or receive access codes can occupy positions of considerable trust. When that trust is abused, the resulting losses can extend beyond money to include reputational damage, disruption and the need for internal investigations.
Recent Singapore cases covered by WWC One Media have similarly highlighted how theft can occur in very different settings, from alleged theft at retail locations to serious residential burglaries involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in property. Three Foreign Burglars Steal S$644,700 From Singapore Luxury Home — But an Elderly Man’s Unexpected Move Changes Everything
Another recent WWC report on an alleged perfume-theft case at Changi Airport also shows how Singapore’s theft cases can involve both ordinary consumer goods and high-value luxury products, although that case remained at the allegation/charging stage. Man to Be Charged Over Alleged Perfume Theft Spree at Singapore’s Changi Airport
The bigger question: how much trust should employers place in access?
For Lim, the case involved someone who had risen within her organization and had been entrusted with access to personal belongings, company resources and a vehicle.
For businesses, it raises a broader question about how much responsibility should be concentrated in a single employee — and whether financial controls, access management and regular internal checks can identify problems before they become criminal cases.
The court proceedings have now produced a final sentence for Tey, but the case leaves a wider business question behind:
When an employee is given the keys, access codes and financial authority of a company, what safeguards can protect trust before that access is abused?
