Sentosa Cove owner agrees to forfeit bungalow after one-year jail term
Zhang Ruisheng will surrender 69 Cove Drive after S$17.6 million entered his bank account in 2020.
A Sentosa Cove bungalow bought with about S$10.4 million, including stamp duty, is being surrendered to the State after its owner received a one-year jail term. Zhang Ruisheng also agreed to give up a Toyota Vellfire.
Zhang, a 54-year-old Chinese national, pleaded guilty on 19 October 2026 to one count of possessing benefits of criminal conduct. His case centres on about S$17.6 million that entered his bank account through 11 overseas transfers within several weeks in 2020.
How the money led to 69 Cove Drive
Between August and September 2020, the S$17.6 million arrived in Zhang’s CIMB account from overseas. About S$10.4 million was subsequently used for the purchase price and stamp duty of the bungalow at 69 Cove Drive.
Zhang supplied the bank with documents intended to explain the funds. These reportedly concerned a purported Macau property sale and loans, but investigators found that he could not satisfactorily account for the money in his account.
Nearly S$5 million was withdrawn before CIMB closed the account. Part of that money was later put towards the deposit for another property at 79 Cove Drive, which was to be held in another brother’s name.
The Commercial Affairs Department began investigating Zhang in August 2023. A prohibition order was issued against 69 Cove Drive, preventing the property from being dealt with while the investigation continued.
The six-year sequence makes the property’s role clearer:
- August–September 2020: Zhang’s account received about S$17.6 million through 11 overseas transfers.
- 2020: About S$10.4 million, including stamp duty, went towards acquiring 69 Cove Drive.
- August 2023: The Commercial Affairs Department began investigating Zhang and dealings with the property were restricted.
- 19 October 2026: Zhang received 12 months’ jail and agreed to forfeit the bungalow and vehicle.
The family connection—and the important distinction
Zhang Ruisheng is the older brother of Zhang Ruijin, one of the 10 people convicted in Singapore’s S$3 billion money-laundering case.
Zhang Ruijin was sentenced to 15 months’ jail in 2024 after pleading guilty to one forgery charge and two money-laundering charges. His assets valued at about S$118 million were forfeited to the State.
That relationship explains the connection between the cases, but the brothers should not be given the same legal label. Zhang Ruisheng’s reported conviction was specifically for possessing benefits of criminal conduct, not money laundering.
His prosecution was also a separate proceeding concerning the transfers into his own account, the explanations supplied for those funds and the assets acquired with part of the money.
What the bungalow figures actually mean
Two different figures have been attached to 69 Cove Drive. The first is the approximately S$10.4 million reportedly spent on its purchase price and stamp duty in 2020.
The second is a roughly S$10 million description of the bungalow’s value when its forfeiture was reported. Neither figure represents a new open-market sale or the amount eventually recovered by the State.
That distinction matters because forfeiture is not an ordinary transaction between a seller and buyer. No disposal method, sale date or eventual recovery amount for 69 Cove Drive was established in the available reporting.
The case therefore supplies no fresh achieved sale price for the Sentosa Cove market. Its property significance is narrower and more direct: a bungalow bought after millions arrived in an account over several weeks has become an asset its owner agreed to surrender following his conviction.
What happens next
The confirmed outcome is Zhang’s 12-month jail sentence and his agreement to give up 69 Cove Drive and the Toyota Vellfire. Any later sale or other disposal of the bungalow would be a separate event.
Until that happens, the roughly S$10 million description should not be mistaken for proceeds already collected by the State. The unresolved property question is now practical rather than criminal: how 69 Cove Drive will eventually be disposed of, and how much that process will realise.


