SINGAPORE: A woman who transferred more than S$210,000 (US$155,300) over six years to a man she believed would marry her later discovered he had been lying to her and using her money to live a lavish lifestyle.
Ms Lee Mei Lan took the man to court to recover the sum and won the case. A district court ordered the man, Mr Derrick Ng Jing Yuan, to pay her S$210,050 in damages with interest from the date of the suit.
According to a judgment made available on Thursday (May 30), Ms Lee met Mr Ng in 2008 and believed she was in a romantic relationship with him from about 2010 to 2020.
In 2014, the 42-year-old Singaporean woman began to transfer about S$650 a week to Mr Ng. She did this because she thought the now-41-year-old Singaporean man was her future husband, and his father her future father-in-law.
At the time, Mr Ng had left his job as an insurance agent and said he needed money to foot his father’s medical bills. Ms Lee was earning about S$3,000 a month at this time, with the transfers making up almost her entire income.
In her suit, she claimed that Mr Ng repeatedly told her that his father was sick and that his siblings did not help with the medical bills.
Ms Lee, who was represented by Mr Keith Hsu and Mr Nico Lee from Emerald Law, said Mr Ng told her he would repay her.
TILL DEATH DO US PART
Ms Lee believed that she was in a genuine relationship with Mr Ng, and that they would eventually get married and get the money back.
This was because of Mr Ng’s conduct – they went on dates, talked about having babies and buying a matrimonial home, and even shared the housework.
Mr Ng also referred to them as “man and wife” and said they would be together “till death do us (part)”, said Ms Lee.
Over time, Mr Ng asked for more money from Ms Lee and would also ask her to pay for his shopping expenses, Ms Lee said.
But she began to grow suspicious as he appeared to make excuses whenever she wanted to meet his family and friends. Mr Ng also did not allow her to contact him on WhatsApp, claiming his colleagues might see it on his office desktop.
In August 2019, Ms Lee’s mother noticed that Ms Lee’s savings were dwindling and locked them away so Ms Lee could save up for a Housing Board flat.
When Ms Lee told Mr Ng that she could no longer transfer him money, she felt his attitude towards her change. She said he treated her coldly and would not go out with her or text her unless it was to ask for money.
THE TRUTH REVEALED
In November 2020, Ms Lee hired a private investigator to conduct a background check on Mr Ng. She learnt that he worked for his cousin’s company and owned an HDB flat that was well-renovated.
He also lived there with another woman and they appeared to be a couple. The private investigator also reported that Mr Ng did not appear to have any financial problems.
At this point, Ms Lee had transferred Mr Ng a total sum of what she claimed was about S$212,850 over the years.
She sued him for deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation and asked for the money back.
THE MAN’S DEFENCE
Mr Ng, who was represented by Mr Tan Cheng Kiong, did not deny receiving money from Ms Lee, but claimed it was not the sum claimed by Ms Lee.
He admitted to saying some of the things Ms Lee had claimed he told her, as well as his conduct of appearing to be in a romantic relationship with her.
However, he said his behavior was not fraudulent and argued that the relationship was genuine. He said Ms Lee was his only girlfriend at the time, although they were not intimate.
He said all the money Ms Lee had given him was done voluntarily whenever he had financial difficulties. He claimed that Ms Lee never asked for repayment until they ended the relationship and the lawsuit was initiated.
Mr Ng argued that the relationship could not have carried on for 10 years if it were not genuine. He said that interactions between them became strained in 2020 and 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and this led to the breakdown of their relationship.
He referred to her as “a jilted lover who was upset when he said that he was not ready for marriage as he had many issues in his professional and personal life”, the judge noted.
District Judge Jasmin Kaur found that Ms Lee had proven her case that false representations had been made to her, on which she gave the money to Mr Ng.
In contrast, Mr Ng did not prove his case that his representations were not false.
JUDGE’S FINDINGS
Judge Kaur found Mr Ng an evasive witness, “constantly shifting in position, giving the impression that he was concocting evidence as he went along”.
For example, he changed his answers when asked about purchases from Gucci and Louis Vuitton and of a Subaru vehicle he was driving.
He also could not produce evidence of medical bills for his mother, that he claimed had caused him to be in debt in 2020.
Ms Lee had produced photographs to show that Mr Ng drove an expensive sports car and wore branded items, and that his mother bought a Rolex watch. In response, Mr Ng said the photos did not prove that he owned any of those things.
The judge found this response “insufficient” as the evidential burden had shifted to him, after Ms Lee produced proof of him leading a lavish lifestyle.
Judge Kaur said Mr Ng’s credit card statements from November 2017 to January 2020 showed spending on luxury brands, nightlife, restaurant meals, vehicle modifications and other expenses that were not consistent with someone crumbling under the debt of medical expenses.
He also had expensive hair services on an almost monthly basis. Mr Ng’s response to most of these was that he did not remember them, or that they were company expenses – a claim that went uncorroborated.
Judge Kaur said she was inclined to accept that the relationship was genuine in the first few years, but could not say the same about the concluding years of the relationship.
“NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATM”
“On the available evidence, it appears that the defendant regarded the plaintiff as nothing more than an ATM,” said the judge.
She referred to texts Ms Lee sent to Mr Ng in late 2020, which he ignored or responded to harshly with requests for money.
In the messages, Ms Lee begged Mr Ng to “come back” and said she could fork out some money.
In one text, Ms Lee wrote: “(You) have been gone almost 1 year.. I cried every single night.. really every single day (and) night.. I really lost all hopes already.. if together for 10 plus years doesn’t stop (you) from finding others. If you think you won’t ever marry me. If your side already has another woman. Can you help (me)? … Give (me) a clean cut? Break up and I will stop waiting for you. (I’m) not young anymore.”
Mr Ng did not tell Ms Lee that his father had died in 2018. She continued believing he was alive even in 2020, sending Mr Ng a message that she planned to buy a house for his parents to live in so he could see them daily.
The judge ordered Mr Ng to pay Ms Lee S$210,050 in damages, with interest at 5.33 per cent from the date of the writ of the suit to the date of the judgment.
She also ordered Mr Ng to pay Ms Lee costs of S$50,000 with GST and disbursements of about S$10,000.
