WITH his impeccably neat hair, well-pressed clothes and fancy cuff links, he looked every bit the wealthy Arab sheikh he claimed to be.

Mr Kadim's office front door was locked on Tuesday night by his landlord. Photo: TNP

Mr Kadim's office front door was locked on Tuesday night by his landlord.

Perhaps even with royal relations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

But was this image, assumed by 42-year-old Kadim Kherbeet Abdullatif while living in Singapore, genuine?

Unlikely, say some among his former Singapore employees.

No, said the UAE Embassy in Singapore.

Show me the money first, says his office landlord.

He called himself Sheikh Dr Mansuor bin Rashid Hamdan and registered a trading company in Singapore - the Al-Mansouree Royal International Group - in 2006.

According to its website, the company's core businesses include healthcare and trading in precious minerals, oil and urea.

But the 'sheikh' is in trouble.

Five of his former employees have reported him to the Manpower Ministry for failing to pay their salaries.

His landlord at Suntec City has locked the doors to his office over arrears totalling $50,000.

His workers said he often claimed to have business deals worth billions and had links to UAE royalty.

But, in an e-mail to The New Paper, Mr Asim Mirza Alrahmah, Charge d' Affaires of the UAE Embassy in Singapore, confirmed that Mr Kadim is not even a citizen of the UAE.

Thanking The New Paper for raising awareness about the man, Mr Asim said: 'This person is neither a citizen of UAE nor a member or related to any of the members of the royal family in the UAE.'

Mr Asim confirmed the embassy had earlier alerted the authorities in the UAE to his presence and activities here.

They in turn informed the Embassy that Mr Kadim, who was born in 1966 in Basra, Iraq, had been convicted of various fraud-related crimes.

A circular from the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Mr Kadim was arrested in Abu Dhabi in 2003 and jailed for three months.

He was also banned from entering the UAE.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Manpower said five of Mr Kadim's former employees filed claims with it on 16 May.

The claims will be heard in the Labour court next week.

The spokesman confirmed there had been two previous complaints against the same company. These had been settled.

NOT SURPRISING

A former employee of the company, Mr Michael Teo, 44, said he was not surprised that Mr Kadim was not who he claimed to be.

Mr Teo, who worked as a marketing executive for Mr Kadim's company for three weeks, claimed he was not paid for the work done. A cheque he received had bounced.

At least four of Mr Teo's former colleagues faced a similar plight.

He said: 'I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but there were several incidents that convinced me he was not the man he claimed to be.'

Mr Teo claimed Mr Kadim used to brag about lucrative business deals he had secured.

But he said none of the deals mentioned were realised 'because Mr Kadim couldn't prove that he had the funding to proceed with large commodity purchases'.

Mr Teo said: 'We already know his real identity, but the real concern is, who has been funding his stay in Singapore and what are his intentions?'

The landlord for the office in Suntec Tower 1 rented by Mr Kadim declined to be named, alleging that she is still owed $50,000 in unpaid rent.

ELECTRICITY CUT OFF

Electricity to Mr Kadim's office was cut off more than a week ago, said the landlord.

However, it was business as usual for some of his employees until early this week.

Said the landlord: 'I saw the employees walking around inside the office, but I haven't seen (Mr Kadim) around.'

On Tuesday night, she locked the office so nobody would be able to enter.

She said: 'I made the mistake of trusting the agent who recommended him to us. I thought that because they were a well-known agency, there wouldn't be any problems.'

The landlord said she usually conducts background checks on prospective tenants before renting office space to them.

But she admitted not being as careful in Mr Kadim's case because he had been recommended by a reputable agent.

She said: 'My biggest mistake was not being more thorough with my checks.'

This article was first published in The New Paper on May 29, 2008.