\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 After their extramarital affair of nearly 30 years ended, two former lovers sued each other over the money they had transferred between themselves over the years. <\/p>\n
Mr Chan Tuck Cheong sued Madam Sin Wee Hiong, claiming that she still owes him $222,000 out of the $495,000 he had lent her.<\/p>\n
Madam Sin denied that she owed him money. Instead, she contended in a counterclaim that she had lent him more than $1 million, of which $578,000 remains unpaid. <\/p>\n
She said she first lent $800,000 to Mr Chan in 2013 after she and her then husband remortgaged their matrimonial home in Serangoon Gardens for $1.26 million. <\/p>\n
Madam Sin said Mr Chan had asked her to do so because he needed the funds to redevelop his landed property in Bedok. <\/p>\n
In a written judgment on Jan 5, Senior Judge Chan Seng Onn dismissed Mr Chan\u2019s claim for $222,000 and allowed Madam Sin\u2019s counterclaim for $578,000.<\/p>\n
The linchpin of Madam Sin\u2019s case was a document signed by Mr Chan acknowledging the $800,000 loan, the judge noted.<\/p>\n
Mr Chan admitted that he had signed the document but claimed he did not receive the money. <\/p>\n
He said Madam Sin had asked him to sign the document so that she could show it to her husband. <\/p>\n
Mr Chan suggested that she needed money for gambling, which prompted her to hatch a plan to get her husband to agree to take a bank loan by deceiving him into believing that the money was to be lent to Mr Chan. <\/p>\n
But the judge said Mr Chan failed to prove that the signed acknowledgement was created as a sham document.<\/p>\n
As a long time had passed since then, neither party could provide bank records to help determine whether $800,000 had in fact been received by Mr Chan. <\/p>\n
The judge said the burden was on the claimant to prove that there was an intention to mislead Madam Sin\u2019s husband, and the court required more cogent and forceful evidence to make such a finding.<\/p>\n
Justice Chan found that Madam Sin had indeed lent Mr Chan $800,000 in 2013, as reflected in the document. <\/p>\n
The judge concluded that the transfers from Mr Chan to Madam Sin between 2017 and 2021 were partial repayments of the loan.<\/p>\n
The judge also found that 12 further transfers from Madam Sin to Mr Chan between 2018 and 2019 were fresh loans. <\/p>\n
Justice Chan said Madam Sin had given some substantiation that Mr Chan needed funds for one of his companies and his daughter\u2019s overseas education. <\/p>\n
Mr Chan, a professional engineer, and Madam Sin are business partners in TC Sin & Associates, a firm that provides engineering consultancy services. The firm was started by Madam Sin\u2019s father in 1972.<\/p>\n
Mr Chan joined the firm in 1990 and became a partner in 1994. He later set up other companies, including one named ICPH International.<\/p>\n
Mr Chan and Madam Sin were married to their respective spouses when they began their affair in 1993, though she divorced her husband in 2017.<\/p>\n
According to the judgment, the lovers were heavy gamblers and frequented the Resorts World Sentosa casino together.<\/p>\n
Madam Sin became a partner of TC Sin & Associates in 2019. She was also a director or shareholder in Mr Chan\u2019s companies at various times.<\/p>\n
Her former husband, Mr Chow Kwong Wah, worked at TC Sin & Associates as a clerk of works. From 2013 to 2015, he was employed as a project manager at ICPH. <\/p>\n
When giving his testimony, Mr Chow said he treated Mr Chan as a colleague and family friend. <\/p>\n
He added that he was not wealthy, and that Madam Sin\u2019s parents not only financed their honeymoon but also a large part of the cost of their matrimonial property. <\/p>\n
Justice Chan said that, against this backdrop, it was perfectly understandable why Mr Chow would be deferential to Madam Sin\u2019s management of the finances, as he was fully cognisant that he did not contribute much towards their property.<\/p>\n
During the couple\u2019s divorce, the unpaid balance of the $800,000 loan was not listed as a matrimonial asset because Mr Chow said he was not thinking about money at the time.<\/p>\n
He added that he had consented to Madam Sin\u2019s request for a simplified track divorce in exchange for her promise to stay with him and the children for three years after the divorce, because he still loved her and did not wish to hurt their children and grandchildren.<\/p>\n
The affair ended in 2022.<\/p>\n
In May 2023, Madam Sin sued Mr Chan for minority oppression, in response to his actions, such as removing her as a director of one of his companies. <\/p>\n
In July that year, ICPH sued Madam Sin, seeking recovery of more than $69,000 in outstanding loans. <\/p>\n
The following month, Mr Chan filed the current suit. The pair agreed to proceed with the current suit while keeping the two other cases on hold.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n