Antique Dealer Jailed 2 Years and 5 Months for Swapping $315,280 Qing Dynasty Vase with Fake to Pay Off Debt

An antique dealer facing financial problems has been jailed for two years and five months after scamming a collector.

He tricked the collector into handing over a Qing Dynasty Qianlong-era blue and white porcelain worth more than $300,000, claiming he needed to appraise it.

He later sold this antique for $150,000 to pay off his debts. The dishonest dealer also damaged an authentic painting while cleaning it and returned a fake to the owner.

The Charges

Kuok Chio, 42, faced five charges including breach of trust, scamming and violations of the corruption, drug trafficking and other serious crimes.

He had previously admitted to three charges, with the judge considering the other two during Monday’s sentencing (3 March 2025).

Prosecutors said the defendant misappropriated a blue and white porcelain worth at least $315,280 for personal gain.

They noted he tried to hide his crimes by returning counterfeits and forging labels. They asked the judge to impose a jail term of between two years five months and two years eight months.

According to case details, the defendant ran a private limited company called Chinese Art Centre as an antique dealer.

The victim was an antique collector who knew the defendant from buying antique pieces from him.

Elaborate Scheme to Deceive Collector

Before 25 October 2023, a group of buyers showed interest in the victim’s collection. The defendant visited the victim to take photos of the collection.

Since the victim’s wife felt uneasy about entrusting the antique sales to the defendant, the victim told him he no longer planned to sell his collection.

A few days later, the defendant contacted the victim saying he would make a trip to Hong Kong. He asked if the victim would allow him to take two pieces from the collection to Hong Kong for appraisal.

The two met on 25 October 2023 and the victim agreed to let the defendant take an 18th-century vase worth about 1.8 million Hong Kong dollars (~$315,280).

The victim reminded the defendant not to sell the porcelain without permission. The defendant wrote a post-dated check for $50,000 to the victim as security.

At that time, the defendant’s company faced financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was between $60,000 and $70,000 in debt.

The defendant decided to use the victim’s porcelain to raise cash to pay off his debts, selling it to another antique dealer for $150,000.

On 11 November 2023, the defendant returned a fake vase to the victim and forged relevant labels to deceive him. The victim reported the case to the police on 14 November.

Previous Deception Involving Damaged Artwork

The defendant had once deceived the victim before this incident.

Around June 2021, the defendant saw a Chinese calligraphy painting by famous Singaporean artist Lim Tze Peng at the victim’s home. The victim had purchased this piece for $18,000.

The defendant pointed out some stains on the painting and suggested the victim hire a specialist to clean it.

The victim accepted this suggestion and agreed to let the defendant take the painting for cleaning, paying him $2,700 for cleaning and transport fees.

In January 2022, the defendant informed the victim that the painting had been restored and would be returned on 24 January.

That day, the defendant gave the victim a plastic tube containing a painting, instructing him not to open it because the tube contained nitrogen to help preserve the artwork.

In June 2024, when the victim wanted to reframe the painting due to moving house, he took it to an art dealer’s office.

Staff there pointed out that the painting in the plastic tube was a forgery.

Investigations revealed that the defendant didn’t know how to clean paintings properly.

While following online tutorial videos, he incorrectly used chemical agents and accidentally created more stains on the painting.

Not knowing how to explain this to the victim, he decided to substitute a fake. He used photos taken before cleaning to print out a copy of the painting at a printing shop.

However, the truth eventually came to light more than two years later.