Singh Deepak, 24, had purchased a Rolex GMT Saru from an acquaintance known only as “Matteo” in early 2025, handing over €55,000 in cash and a Cartier bracelet valued at around €5,000. The GMT Saru is among the rarest Rolex models in circulation – Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Teh informed the court that only around 20 authentic examples are believed to exist worldwide, with a typical value of approximately $120,000.

Mr Deepak’s suspicions were raised when a watch shop told him the serial number on his timepiece appeared to have been laser engraved rather than originally stamped – a hallmark of counterfeiting. Convinced that Matteo had swindled him, he resolved to offload the watch.

On 28 November 2025, Mr Deepak visited a retailer on Bencoolen Street in Singapore, presenting the watch alongside its warranty card. Following negotiations, a price of $94,700 was agreed.

Rather than accepting cash, Mr Deepak exchanged the GMT Saru for three Rolex watches: a Submariner valued at $44,000, and a Daytona and a GMT each worth upwards of $25,000. He also submitted a forged copy of his passport to avoid potential criminal liability and taxes.

After Mr Deepak departed with the three watches, the shop director grew suspicious and had the GMT Saru examined more closely. Using a loupe on the advice of a neighbouring retailer, he observed that the watch’s original serial number appeared to have been removed and subsequently re-engraved, leading him, too, to conclude the watch was fake.

He contacted Mr Deepak repeatedly before alerting police. Mr Deepak initially agreed to return, then booked a flight to Italy and was arrested at Changi Airport that same evening.

When the watch was taken to the official Rolex Service Centre on 3 December 2025, a technician confirmed that every component was authentic and original.

DPP Teh described it as a case of “impossible attempt”, noting that no actual financial loss occurred. Had the watch genuinely been counterfeit, the loss would have amounted to $94,700. The prosecution had sought a custodial sentence of one year, arguing Mr Deepak had seen the scheme through to completion without abandoning it.

His defence lawyers from LVM Law Chambers called it “a single, unsophisticated, immediately detected attempted transaction”, and noted that Mr Deepak had no prior criminal record in Italy. The court settled on seven months.