top of page

Fast Debt Recovery | Investment Scam | "Alvin is my partner, we do this together" - Part 2

As we are aware, there have been plenty of gossip surrounding the video we posted about Ms C on our Facebook on the 28th of March 2018 (Link: The Fast Debt Recovery staff are strong advocates of 2 specific values – transparency and accountability. Thus, as promised, we will be addressing some of the FAQs we have received with regards to Mr. Alvin Ker’s Investment Scam and our case against Ms C.

Q: Why is the Fast Debt Recovery team executing Debt Collection initiatives against Ms C when she is a victim / not at fault?

1. In Ms C’s case, a verbal agreement was made between Ms C and our client. In civil proceedings, or at least, in Debt Collection, a verbal agreement is still enforceable if there is enough evidence to support the validity and the legitimacy of the agreement.

2. Before the acceptance of the case and/or any execution of debt collection activities against Ms C, we did our due diligence by getting our Case Officers to vet through the documents that were provided to us by our client to see if Ms C is truly responsible for the debt that was incurred.

The findings of the document vetting are enclosed below:

Main pointers:

  • This agreement was made between Ms C and our client. Mr. Alvin Ker was not involved in anything that was discussed (screenshots attached).

  • The guarantee for the Investment was issued by Ms C who is NOT an employee/ staff of Mr. Alvin Ker. She have mentioned that she was a partner of Mr Alvin Ker in the screenshots and have also said that due to her position in this scheme offered by Alvin, ALL the investors will go through them both.

  • That this is a risk-free investment akin to that of a savings plan just that the returns is more and the the investor receives his returns quicker.

This contradicts what Ms C have claimed, that she have told those who have invested under her to 'invest at their own risk'

The logic behind this is simple to understand.

Example 1:

You are getting married. You engaged Person X to organize your wedding after looking at reviews that praise Person X’s wedding planning skills. You paid Person X a total sum of $XYZ which Person X used to pay off her wedding vendors. Person X made a profit of 20%. 2 weeks later, you receive a call saying that her vendors have ran away and thus Person X is unable to carry on planning your wedding. She is calling just to inform you that the wedding will not commence as planned but she is not responsible for anything else as it is not her fault her vendors ran away. Would you be angry?

Who would you look for? Person X (your wedding planner, the person you have signed the deal with. The only person you have liaised with, who have given you the guarantee that your wedding will be planned without a hitch by her vendors whom she is working with).


Person X's vendors (who you have not communicated with before, who have not issued you any guarantee.)

Example 2:



Our client was aware that Ms C was an employee of a prominent bank in Singapore. Considering her background, her position in this scheme as Alvin's partner, her claims of having 'brokers' under her wing, it is reasonable for a first-time investor (with no prior investment experience) to believe that Ms C possess the necessary knowledge to advise on the investment that she is promoting. Additionally, through the context of the words that Ms C have used during the entire discussion, and with the reviews that she has given, it is extremely clear that the intention of the entire discussion was to:

  • Recruit our client as an investor

  • That our client will be losing out on a money-making opportunity especially as this is a risk-free investment with a rebate guarantee

  • That he can trust her, and if he doesn’t, he can trust the reviews that she has given of people who have profited from this scheme

  • That he will not lose the money and that this investment is akin to that of putting money in a savings account just that the rebates are more and in shorter intervals

Our client wound up investing in this scheme not because of Alvin, but because Ms C convinced him. He participated in this scheme through Ms C (who is not an agent nor staff [as Alvin possess no physical company], an independent freelance contractor).

The agreement was formed between Ms C and our client. There was no agreement in any shape or form between Alvin and our client.


Q2: Our Debt Collection Initiatives

We are also aware that Ms C have been accusing our staff of being harsh, impatient and plainly speaking, behaving like 'hooligans'. We would like to take this opportunity to refute her allegation.

After our dispute meeting with Ms C s C on the 14th of March 2018, Ms C have agreed to take responsibility for 20% of the debt that she owed our client (as the 20% was what she have allegedly benefited from the investment transaction). Therefore, this contradicts the statement where she has claimed that she did not owe any debt.

Her claims:

​On the 17th of March, Ms C said she wasn't able to meet on Monday, 19th of March 2018. We asked her for her employment contract or any form of documentation to prove that she was truly unable to make the appointment and is not cancelling the appointment based on willfulness. The reason behind this is:

For accountability purposes, all statements and claims from the debtors have to be backed up by the proper documentations. Ms C have been notified of this as well. We were ignored by Ms C for a few days, despite us relenting and trying to fix another appointment date (in accordance to Ms C’s schedule). We later learnt that her non-cooperation is not due to anything except for her unhappiness and anger.

Ms C claimed that her last minute refusal to honour the commitment that she have made is due to the fact that our client may potentially engage another debt enforcement agency to retrieve the debt from her once again, although we have assured her there such a situation is impossible as there will be proper documentation to prove that the debt have been satisfied. She ignored our explanation.

We later also learnt that she is not represented even though she claimed differently since the 14th of March 2018. She has told us she would like us to liaise with her lawyer directly but she has not provided us his/her contact details although we have requested for them multiple of times.

We have been patient and we have been respectful. In accordance to the screenshots, we have been extremely cordial in all our communication with Ms C although she has victimized herself on several occasions. We have also given Ms C the benefit of the doubt and strategized our movements in accordance to her preferences (as she was once cooperative) but to no avail. Thus, we are left with no choice but to commence debt collection proceedings as per our usual SOP. It is now 31st of March. We have not heard from her attorney.


Q3: Why did we post the video? 1) Because we believe the public deserves to know the truth so that they can protect themselves better.

Ms C have been issuing conflicting information to many of the victims and the staff members of Fast Debt Recovery. Although she have admitted to violating PDPA to retrieve Alvin's particulars for the victims, there is glaring evidence that show that she may potentially know more about the entire scheme besides what she have admitted to, including other individuals who may have played a part in this scheme. We decided to release this article as we believe that should we withhold these information and the our clarification with regards to the claims that she have made, it may obstruct justice from being served. 2) Because we want to clarify our stance and address the accusations that Ms C have made against our firm.

We are aware that Ms C have also malign our company for acts that we did not commit, thus we decided to disclose the video to shed light on our encounter with Ms C. We did not blur Ms C face in the video as there is no other way we can release this public announcement without identifying who she is. However, in accordance with the PDPA guidelines and to protect her privacy, we have censored her name and her phone numbers in all the correspondences (between us and Ms C) that we have shared.

Search By Tags
bottom of page