My brother just passed on, if not, I make sure I ask him to haunt you
In Singapore, a minor dispute over a rare Pokémon card has grown into a broader reckoning about the distance between professional identity and private conduct. A marketing director at one of the country's largest real estate firms allegedly threatened a dissatisfied buyer with the ghost of her recently deceased brother after he aired his grievances publicly online. What began as a confusing auction has become a meditation on accountability — how the digital world collapses the walls between who we are at work and who we are when we believe no one important is watching.
- A buyer who felt misled over a S$300 price discrepancy on a rare Pikachu card took his complaint public, setting off a chain of events far larger than the transaction itself.
- The seller's alleged private message — invoking her deceased brother's ghost as a threat — shocked an online community already skeptical of her auction conduct.
- Screenshots linking her to a 'Super Platinum Achiever' award at PropNex amplified the story, turning a trading card spat into a question of professional reputation.
- PropNex had been contacted for comment but remained silent as the story spread across news outlets and social media, leaving the reputational damage uncontained.
- The card's market value, somewhere between S$1,500 and S$1,900, has become almost irrelevant — the real cost now is measured in public trust and corporate credibility.
On May 9th, a Singapore Facebook user posted screenshots alleging a bait-and-switch auction for a sealed Pikachu Grey Felt Hat card — a rare and sought-after Pokémon collectible. He had been the leading bidder at S$1,588.88, but when he messaged the seller privately, she insisted on S$1,888.88. She held firm, citing market conditions and her original listing terms. He walked away, frustrated.
The dispute might have ended there, but he also suspected the same card was being auctioned simultaneously in another Facebook group. The seller denied it, claiming she owned two copies, and suggested critics had simply failed to read her description carefully. The tone was dismissive, and the community took note.
A week later, on May 16th, the buyer returned with a screenshot of a private message allegedly sent by the seller: a warning to delete his post within 24 hours, or her recently deceased brother would haunt him. The message was blunt and grammatically raw. It spread rapidly.
As the post went viral, other users surfaced details about the seller's professional life — she was identified as a marketing director at PropNex Singapore, and a separate screenshot showed her receiving a company award just days before the dispute began. By May 19th, news outlets were covering the story, her profile still listed her PropNex title, and the company had yet to respond.
The Pokémon card had long since ceased to be the point. What remained was a portrait of a professional caught between two very different versions of herself, and an employer left to decide what, if anything, that gap demanded of them.
On May 9th, a Singapore Facebook user posted screenshots of what he said was a bait-and-switch auction. A woman had listed a sealed Pikachu Grey Felt Hat card—a rare Pokémon trading card—in one group with a reserve price of S$1,588.88. He was the leading bidder at that price. But when he messaged her privately to confirm the sale, she told him she would only release it at S$1,888.88, a difference of S$300. When he pushed back, she held firm, saying she had already disclosed the terms in her listing. He found the whole thing confusing. She apologized, encouraged him to bid higher, and mentioned that market prices had climbed. He declined and walked away.
What made the situation worse was that he believed he'd spotted the same card being sold simultaneously in another Facebook group. The seller, when confronted in the comments section of his post, denied this. She said she owned two copies of the card, not one. She also told critics they simply hadn't read her description carefully enough—that was their problem, not hers. The tone was sharp. The dispute seemed to end there, a small grievance in the Singapore Pokémon trading card community.
But on May 16th, a week later, the buyer posted again. This time he shared a screenshot of a private message allegedly from the seller. The message was stark: "You better delete the post within 24 hours. My brother just passed on, if not, I make sure I ask him to haunt you." The grammar was rough, the threat unmistakable. Within hours, the post exploded across Facebook. Commenters expressed shock at the escalation. Some dug into the seller's profile and found that she identified herself as a marketing director at PropNex Singapore, one of the country's largest real estate agencies. Another screenshot circulated showing her receiving a "Super Platinum Achiever" award on May 3rd—just days before the card dispute began.
By May 19th, when news outlets began reporting on the incident, her Facebook profile still listed her as a marketing director at PropNex. The company had been contacted for comment but had not yet responded. The story had moved beyond a simple transaction gone wrong. It was now a question of how a real estate professional had handled a customer complaint, and whether her employer would address her conduct. The Pokémon card itself—worth somewhere in the range of S$1,500 to S$1,900 depending on market conditions—had become almost beside the point. What lingered was the image of someone invoking her deceased brother as a threat, and the gap between the professional identity she maintained at work and the person who sent that message.
Notable Quotes
Never read my description, that is your problem— The seller, defending her auction terms in Facebook comments
You better delete the post within 24 hours. My brother just passed on, if not, I make sure I ask him to haunt you— Alleged private message from the seller to the buyer
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did this card dispute blow up the way it did? It sounds like a normal transaction disagreement.
It wasn't the disagreement itself. It was the message she sent a week later—threatening him with her dead brother's ghost if he didn't delete his post. That's what made people stop and stare.
Do we know if she actually sent it, or is this just a screenshot someone could have faked?
It's a screenshot. We can't verify it independently. But the fact that she's identifiable as a PropNex employee, that she has a public professional profile, that she's receiving company awards—it all made the story feel real and consequential to people watching.
What was she actually upset about? The public complaint?
Yes. He posted about the confusing auction, and she defended herself in the comments. But then he posted again a week later, and that's when the alleged threat came. It seems like the public criticism bothered her enough to escalate.
Did she ever explain the haunt message?
Not in the reporting. She defended the card situation—said she owned two copies, not one—but there's no record of her addressing the supernatural threat itself.
What does PropNex do now?
They were asked for comment. That's where it sits. A company has to decide whether this reflects on them, whether it's a personnel matter, whether they respond publicly or handle it internally.