Australia-based trader caught working from Singapore after employer tracks laptop to hotel

A Sydney-based currency trader was fired after he was caught secretly on holiday in Singapore, while telling his employer he was “working from home”. Charles Graham had been working for HIFX Australia, which trades as currency exchange company Xe, for 20 months when his employer discovered that both he and his laptop were in Singapore, not Sydney. It wasn’t his first undisclosed stint abroad, as Mr Graham previously told his manager that he needed to stay home for a plumber dealing with “some recurring bathroom issues”, but was actually in Bali, according to the Guardian.Xe had already turned down Graham’s request from September 2025 to relocate to Singapore for a year. The trader had a youth mobility visa that he needed to use by mid-November 2025, but the company said his job was based in Sydney and it did not have a licence to operate in Singapore.A Sydney-based currency trader was fired after he was caught secretly on holiday in Singapore, while telling his employer he was ‘working from home’ (Getty/iStock)After his request was rejected, Mr Graham sent his workplace a medical certificate that claimed he had an eye injury that required him to work from home for three months. He then allegedly took his annual leave and went on holiday to Singapore. Even though he was due back on 17 November, his manager found that he hadn’t returned to work yet.“Our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday, so I will need your FBI skills,” she wrote in an email to an IT employee, according to The Straits Times.The “FBI skills” tracked him to Singapore’s Ibis hotel. Mr Graham said he had intended to return to Australia but had to postpone the flight because his partner developed a bacterial infection and needed medical treatment. He told the company that since the change of plans took place over the weekend, he didn’t think to contact his manager outside business hours. By the time he logged on from Singapore, he claimed to be drowning in hundreds of unread emails, incoming calls, and a complaint from a high-value client, so telling his boss he was still overseas had taken a back seat.Xe didn’t buy it, telling Mr Graham in his December 2025 termination letter that he had failed to produce flight records showing he intended to return to Australia or medical evidence to support his account of his partner’s illness, leaving the company unconvinced by both his reason for staying in Singapore and his failure to tell his manager where he was.“Your conduct represents a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence,” the letter read.Mr Graham challenged his dismissal, taking the case to Australia’s Fair Work Commission, which rules on disputes between employers and employees. He argued that his location had been discovered through “illegal tracking surveillance” and said he had previously worked from Bali several times in April and May 2025 without being reprimanded, according to the Australian Financial Review.His manager, however, told the commission that she was unaware he had been working from overseas. Evidence from the company included a message on Microsoft Teams asking to work from home so he could allegedly be present for the plumber.Graham’s company said he failed to show any documentation to prove he intended to return to Sydney (Getty/iStock)Commissioner Alana Matheson found that Mr Graham concealing his location in Bali proved that he knew and understood the company’s policy that he would need permission to work from another country. She concluded that his failure to disclose his location before being caught in Singapore “was deliberate and amounted to dishonesty”.The commission also questioned how Xe handled the dismissal, saying that it had not explained its reasons for firing Mr Graham, denying him a fair opportunity to respond. It said that it appeared from internal communication that the company had already decided on a course of action, and the discussions were to “give [Graham] a bit of hope to turn up to the meeting”.Mr Graham’s dismissal process was ruled as unfair last week, but the commission acknowledged that Xe had a valid reason to sack him. He did not get his job back or receive additional compensation, in light of the fact that he had already received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.