Customer claims ‘fake’ $35,800 watch embarrassed him at Rolex, Maxi-Cash says he has no official proof
Pawnbroker Maxi-Cash has responded to a customer’s allegations that a preloved Rolex watch he had purchased was “fake”, stating that he had no official “written assessment” to prove his claims.
Stomper Dee had purchased a Rolex timepiece from Maxi-Cash in December 2025 during its road show at Lot One shopping mall. The watch was intended to be a gift for his son – now 15 years old – when he turns 21.
When asked why he did not purchase the watch from an official Rolex store, Dee said he happened to be shopping in Lot One and decided to get the gift.
He added: “Maxi-Cash is such a big company, so we trusted them and didn’t doubt the watch at all.”
Months later, on March 10, Dee sent the watch for servicing at Rolex Service Centre. He did so as he would only be giving the timepiece to his son years later. According to Dee, he was informed by an employee at the centre that the serial number on the timepiece was “not inside their system”.
“I was extremely shocked and felt embarrassed,” recounted Dee, who visited a Maxi-Cash outlet on the same day to ask for a refund.
“Maxi-Cash kept wanting me to hand them my watch (for them to verify), which I chose not to do as I don’t trust them anymore.”
According to Dee, the pawnbroker had suggested that the watch may have been modified with inauthentic parts. However, he felt that this did not explain why the serial number could not be found in Rolex’s official records.
When asked about service recovery, Dee said Maxi-Cash had offered a refund to his credit card, which he rejected. Maxi-Cash then offered a full cash refund of $35,800 for the transaction and an additional $500 voucher that Dee could use with no minimum spend.
The Stomper said he had requested a one-for-one exchange of the same timepiece, with the condition that the new piece from Maxi-Cash must have “Rolex-certified authentication”. The pawnbroker ultimately rejected Dee’s proposal.
Dee said he found the offer of a full refund with the $500 voucher “insulting”, as his money would have easily “gone to (the) drain” if he had not taken the watch for servicing.
“The purpose of sharing this is to let the public be more cautious,” he told Stomp.
Maxi-Cash: Customer had no “official documentation” to prove claims
A Maxi-Cash spokesperson told Stomp on April 1 that its internal investigations found that Dee was “unable to provide any written report or official documentation from the Rolex Service Centre to substantiate the claim that the timepiece is not authentic”.
Maxi-Cash said when its staff spoke to the customer, he clarified that the assessment was conveyed verbally, and that the service centre indicated the serial number corresponded with the timepiece, but described the watch as “fake”.
In the absence of official documentation, Maxi-Cash had requested Dee to return the watch for inspection so it could determine if any modifications were made after his purchase. However, Dee declined to do so.
According to Maxi-Cash, the police similarly advised Dee to return the watch for verification, which he again rejected.
The pawnbroker said its watch specialists carry out a 16-step validation process covering both authenticity and functionality. Where required, servicing and part replacements are performed using original Rolex parts.
The spokesperson added: “In the absence of any written assessment from the Rolex Service Centre, and in the interest of customer satisfaction, we remain prepared to offer a full refund along with a cash voucher, subject to verification that the timepiece has not been modified after it left our store.”
According to Maxi-Cash, Dee visited the store last week and requested a cash refund. It said: “The customer also utilised our goodwill cash voucher to purchase two gold bars and left our store.”
Dee confirmed with Stomp that he has received a full refund and used the $500 voucher.
“Anyway, even if we don’t accept it, there’s nothing we can do,” he added.
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
Explore more on these topics
