A pattern across nearly four years, fourteen women, one location.
In a Singapore courtroom, the machinery of justice has been set in motion around a pattern of alleged violations that unfolded quietly over nearly four years inside a Holland Village massage parlour. A 52-year-old man now faces 22 charges for what prosecutors describe as a sustained campaign of molestation and secret recording against 14 women who came seeking therapeutic care. The case raises enduring questions about trust, vulnerability, and the spaces where harm can hide beneath the appearance of the ordinary.
- Fourteen women were allegedly molested and filmed without consent across nearly four years at a neighbourhood reflexology centre — a place they had entered in trust.
- The charges span two categories of violation: non-consensual physical contact intended to humiliate, and covert recordings of private moments including a filmed sex act and a chest massage.
- The accused, Lee Sze Ben, did not enter a plea, and his precise role at the establishment — worker or customer — remains unresolved, leaving a significant gap in the public record.
- The case has been adjourned to July for legal representation, meaning the fourteen identified victims must wait longer before proceedings advance.
- If convicted, Lee faces up to three years imprisonment, fines, and caning on the molestation charges, with additional penalties possible for the voyeuristic recording counts.
On June 12, a 52-year-old man appeared before a Singapore court to answer 22 criminal charges arising from alleged assaults and voyeuristic recordings at Health Step Foot Reflexology Centre on Lorong Mambong in Holland Village. Lee Sze Ben is accused of molesting 14 women and filming their bodies without consent between February 2021 and December 2024 — a pattern of conduct spanning nearly four years.
The charges fall into two distinct categories of harm. Some allege the use of criminal force to outrage modesty — non-consensual touching intended to violate. Others concern the covert recording of private parts without permission. Among the specific incidents cited: an alleged filming of a sex act performed on a 43-year-old woman in September 2022, and a recorded chest massage of a 58-year-old woman in April 2022. These were moments when the women believed they were receiving legitimate care.
Lee did not enter a plea. The court adjourned proceedings to July to allow him time to secure legal representation — a standard step, but one that extends the wait for those affected. His role at the establishment, whether as staff or patron, has not yet been clarified in court.
Conviction on the molestation charges could bring up to three years imprisonment, fines, and caning; the recording charges carry up to two years and similar penalties. For the fourteen women named in the case, the charges represent a formal recognition of what they endured — though the months ahead will require them to revisit those experiences as the case moves through the courts.
A 52-year-old man appeared in a Singapore courtroom on June 12 to face 22 criminal charges stemming from alleged assaults and voyeuristic recordings at a massage parlour in Holland Village. Lee Sze Ben stands accused of molesting 14 women and filming their bodies without consent over nearly four years, from February 2021 through December 2024.
The alleged offences took place at Health Step Foot Reflexology Centre on Lorong Mambong. Court documents do not clarify whether Lee worked at the establishment or was a customer, leaving that detail unresolved at this stage. What is clear is the scope: fourteen separate victims, multiple occasions, and a pattern of conduct that prosecutors say combined physical assault with secret recording.
The charges themselves carry two distinct categories of harm. Some count the use of criminal force to outrage modesty—a legal term for non-consensual touching intended to humiliate or violate. Others address the recording of voyeuristic videos, capturing private parts without permission. In one instance from September 2022, Lee is accused of filming himself performing a sex act on a 43-year-old woman. In another from April 2022, he allegedly recorded video of himself massaging a 58-year-old woman's chest. These are not abstract allegations; they describe specific moments when women believed they were receiving legitimate therapeutic care.
Lee did not enter a plea during the hearing. His case was adjourned to July to allow him time to secure legal representation—a standard procedural step that nonetheless means the women involved will wait months before the case moves forward. The court has not yet heard his account of events or any defense to the charges.
The potential consequences are substantial. Conviction on charges of using criminal force to outrage modesty carries a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, a fine, caning, or some combination of these. The voyeuristic recording charges carry up to two years imprisonment, fines, and caning. The actual sentence, if he is convicted, would depend on factors including the severity of individual incidents, any prior record, and the judge's assessment of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
For the fourteen women identified in the case, the charges represent an acknowledgment by the criminal justice system that what happened to them was not acceptable. Yet the months ahead will require them to relive those experiences through testimony and cross-examination. The case now moves into the machinery of the courts, where it will be tested, debated, and ultimately decided.
Citas Notables
In September 2022, Lee is accused of intentionally recording a video of himself performing a sex act on a 43-year-old woman.— Court charges
Conviction on charges of using criminal force to outrage modesty carries up to three years imprisonment, fines, caning, or a combination thereof.— Singapore law
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
What strikes you most about the timeline here—nearly four years of alleged offences at the same location?
That it wasn't a single incident or a brief lapse. This is a pattern. The woman in 2021, the woman in 2022, the woman in 2024. The parlour kept operating. Customers kept coming. That's the weight of it.
The charges don't say whether he was staff or a customer. Does that distinction matter?
Enormously. If he worked there, it's a breach of trust in a professional setting where women are vulnerable. If he was a customer, it's predatory behaviour in a space where he had no authority. Either way, it's calculated—he knew the environment, knew the routines, knew when he could act.
Why do you think the court documents leave that detail out?
Could be the investigation is still ongoing. Could be it doesn't change the legal charge. But for the women, it matters. They need to know how this happened in a place they thought was safe.
What about the fact that he hasn't entered a plea yet?
It's procedural, but it's also a waiting period. The women have to sit with this unresolved. He gets a lawyer, prepares his defence. Justice moves slowly.
The sentencing guidelines mention caning. That's not common in many countries.
It's part of Singapore's sentencing framework for serious crimes. The point is the law recognizes this as grave—not just a fine, not just time. The severity of the punishment reflects the severity of the violation.