KUALA LUMPUR: Property-related scams have evolved from simple fake listings to more advanced identity-based fraud over the past few years, involving genuine real estate negotiator (REN) numbers, cloned online profiles, and fabricated supporting documents.
With the growing use of digital platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Telegram, fraudsters are increasingly able to pressure victims into making instant payments.
Moreover, organised syndicates have become more involved in large-scale property scams, enabling them to target multiple victims simultaneously through coordinated fraudulent schemes.
Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers (BOVAEP) president Abdul Razak Yusak said property-related scams are primarily conducted through digital channels, including property portals, social media platforms and messaging applications.
He said scammers commonly use fake or duplicated property listings and create a sense of urgency to pressure victims into paying booking fees or rental deposits before verifying the legitimacy of the property.
“To address these risks, BOVAEP has issued public advisories and awareness campaigns encouraging consumers to verify the registration status of estate agents before conducting transactions.
“While major property platforms have introduced voluntary verification measures, such as matching REA/REN registration numbers against official BOVAEP records, there is currently no comprehensive regulatory framework requiring consistent licensing verification across all digital platforms,” he told SunBiz.
Abdul Razak said property buyers can verify the legitimacy of real estate practitioners through the BOVAEP online database, which allows the public to check the registration status of REAs and RENs before making property transactions.
He said registered practitioners are also issued identification tags with QR codes that enable instant verification of their credentials, while clients are encouraged to cross-check the agent’s name, registration number, and contact details against the official BOVAEP records and Board Information System (BIS) database to ensure they are dealing with a legitimate practitioner.
“To further strengthen regulatory oversight and public access to practitioner information, the (BIS) has been enhanced and upgraded, with its latest improvements promoted during industry engagements in 2025 as part of ongoing digitalisation, licensing, and verification initiatives,” he said.
When asked how BOVAEP coordinate with other agencies, such as the police and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when property scams cross into criminal fraud, Abdul Razak said where investigations reveal elements of criminal offences beyond Act 242, BOVAEP may coordinate with the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) and other competent enforcement agencies according to their respective statutory powers.
He noted that Sections 30A and 30B of Act 242 also recognise the involvement of police officers in search and seizure operations.
Abdul Razak pointed out that under Act 242, enforcement is primarily complaint-based and evidence-driven.
Before any enforcement action can be taken, sufficient evidence must be obtained to establish an offence under the Act.
He said although sections 22C, 30A and 30B provide powers to prohibit unlicensed practice and conduct search and seizure, effective enforcement depends on timely information, public complaints and cooperation with relevant agencies.
When asked how many enforcement actions have been taken annually against unlicensed practitioners, Abdul Razak said BOVAEP does not maintain official statistics on the total number of criminal prosecutions or conviction rates, as criminal investigations and prosecutions fall within the jurisdiction of the Royal Malaysia Police and the Public Prosecutor.
He said under Act 242, BOVAEP’s regulatory jurisdiction is over its registered valuers, appraisers and estate agents.
“For complaints involving unlicensed persons or where criminal elements are disclosed, BOVAEP may lodge a police report or advise complainants to report the matter to PDRM or other relevant enforcement agencies for further investigation and appropriate action.
“Accordingly, statistics relating to criminal prosecutions should be obtained from the relevant authorities,” he said.
To a question on whether current penalties are sufficient to deter repeat offenders, or whether there is a need for legislative amendment to increase deterrence, Abdul Razak said the current disciplinary framework provides a range of penalties that enable the Disciplinary Board to impose sanctions that are proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the misconduct.
He said that each case is considered on its own merits, taking into account the relevant facts, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as public interest.
“Whether the existing penalties are sufficient to deter repeat offenders is a matter that requires continuous assessment based on trends, enforcement outcomes, and the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework.
“In this regard, it is also appropriate to consider broader economic developments, including inflation and the increase in the commercial value and complexity of property transactions since the enactment of the legislation.
“These are among the factors that may be taken into account in any future review of the legislative framework. While the present disciplinary regime provides the Board with appropriate disciplinary measures, the need for legislative amendments to enhance deterrence may be considered if evidence indicates that the existing penalties are no longer adequate to achieve their intended objectives.”
He said any proposal to amend the legislation would require careful and appropriate consultation with relevant parties and a comprehensive policy review to ensure that the disciplinary framework remains fair, proportionate, and effective in upholding professional standards and maintaining public confidence.
Abdul Razak said BOVAEP’s long-term approach is to strengthen preventive regulation through public awareness, verification of registered practitioners, promotion of professional standards, and continuous compliance with Act 242.
He said the Board is empowered to maintain the Register, regulate professional conduct and ethics, and promote professional standards to enhance consumer protection and reduce unlicensed estate agency activities.