Jessie Qin ordered to pay property developer Barry Wang $150,000 over ‘sex scammer’ post

An angry woman who slammed her property developer ex online as a “sex scammer” has been forced to pay him damages.

Jessie Qin and Barry Wang when they were together.

A Melbourne property developer’s jilted “sugar baby” has been ordered to pay him $150,000 in compensation after she posted online that he was a sexual predator.

Barry Wang, 40, launched a defamation lawsuit against his ex-lover, Jessie Qin, in the County Court after she posted on WeChat that he was a “rampant sex scammer” and “demon dressed up as an angel” when their romance died.

The single dad had told the court he wanted $350,000 after his character had been tarnished.

Judge Julie Clayton on Friday awarded him $150,000 in damages.

She also permanently restrained Ms Qin from further publishing any of her defamatory claims.

Judge Clayton said Mr Wang would have been “shocked and mortified” when reading the online posts accusing him of being immoral, manipulative and controlling, as well as someone who got women drunk to have sex with them.

“The publications carry a severe sting, including as they do allegations of serious, indeed criminal, conduct,” Judge Clayton said.

“The evidence does not support Ms Qin’s allegations.

Jessie Qin believed her beau wanted to marry her and got angry when their relationship ended.

A judge said the posts would have ‘shocked and mortified’ Barry Wang.

“The allegations were seen by thousands of people within his own community.

“All these matters make a significant award of damages appropriate, to vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation and to convince a person who has heard of the defamatory allegations that they are untrue.”

Judge Clayton said Ms Qin was motivated by malice, admitting in her evidence that she was angry and wanted to rant and “roast” Mr Wang.

The court heard the pair met on Seeking Arrangement, a dating site promoted as a place for “sugar babies” to meet a wealthy “sugar daddy”, in April 2019.

They would meet up for sex, and even went shopping at Sexyland in Springvale together where Mr Wang transferred her $1000 for lingerie.

But Mr Wang said things began to sour in July 2019 when he thought Ms Qin only wanted him for a visa.

He denied her requests to lie to authorities about them living together so she could get a cohabitation certificate.

Ms Qin was also banned from posting about Mr Wang in the future.

An extract of part of Ms Qin’s WeChat post.

In November 2019, he blocked her, but they started a sexual relationship again on Chinese New Year, before he told her to never contact him again on February 13 last year.

A month later she asked him to reimburse her $73.80 for some items, including face masks, she had purchased him, and he transferred her $100.

When she then requested he return two small gifts — a tub of sunscreen and a bottle of gel — she had also got him, he transferred her a further $200.

Judge Clayton found Ms Qin’s belief that Mr Wang wanted to marry her and find a stepmother for his daughter were “far-fetched”.

“Overall, Ms Qin came across as a person who feels greatly wronged and is determined to prove that she is justified in writing the articles she published,” she said.

Ms Qin had argued she was telling the truth and that “it’s my freedom to post my opinion” after Mr Wang had duped her into believing they were made for each other.

She told the court that her request for assistance with her visa was “a joke”.

Mr Wang told the court the relationship was never serious and that he had not been to Ms Qin’s house, met any of her friends, or been out on a date.

She never met his friends, or his daughter.

Judge Clayton also ruled Ms Qin was seeking revenge when she set up a fake account using Mr Wang’s photo on another dating site, saying on the profile, “My name is Barry Wang, I am scum, scum scum”.

“I am satisfied that she was motivated by a desire to get back at him, and to damage him as retribution or retaliation for her hurt feelings,” she said.