Man fails to prove money from then-girlfriend was given out of ‘love and affection’, ordered to repay S$321,000

SINGAPORE: A couple whose relationship turned sour ended up in court over whether more than S$300,000 (US$234,400) the woman had given her boyfriend were loans that had to be repaid, or gifts made out of “love and affection”.

The High Court ruled in Ms Teow Seok Phen’s favour on Thursday (Sep 24), finding that Mr Chee Wei Jun had intended to repay the money and had deliberately projected himself as someone of higher status in an effort to impress her.

Justice Alex Wong found that Ms Teow was taken in by Mr Chee’s efforts to present himself in this way, which at least partly motivated her to lend him money.

The court ordered Mr Chee to repay Ms Teow S$321,116.40, comprising money transferred to him and spending on her credit cards.

PAYNOW, CASH ADVANCES, CREDIT CARDS

Ms Teow, a finance manager, and Mr Chee, a tuition teacher and cafe worker, met through online dating platform Coffee Meets Bagel in June 2023 and began a relationship shortly after.

During their relationship, Ms Teow transferred money to Mr Chee via PayNow and gave him cash, and allowed him to use her credit cards. She said the money included almost all her savings, as well as cash advances and balance transfers from her credit cards.

Ms Teow alleged that Mr Chee had also incurred S$89,945.16 in expenses on her credit cards.

By December 2023, Ms Teow had begun receiving letters from banks seeking payment of outstanding credit card bills.

Ms Teow claimed that Mr Chee had portrayed himself as a very affluent person, saying he had several hundred thousand dollars in his bank account and that his father owned multiple successful companies in Singapore and Malaysia.

Mr Chee allegedly claimed that his account was frozen after he accidentally clicked on a fraudulent link, leaving him without sufficient funds for his daily expenses.

He asked Ms Teow to lend him money, claiming he would repay her when the issue with his bank account was resolved.  

Mr Chee's case was that Ms Teow understood his financial difficulties and had given him the money "out of love and affection", the judgment stated. He also claimed that he used her credit cards only once.

Mr Chee made repayments of S$23,241 and S$35,000. He maintained those repayments were made out of affection as Ms Teow had assisted him financially.

"Matters came to a head between February and March 2024, when the claimant revealed to her family that the defendant had been borrowing money from her," the judgment stated.

Ms Teow's family demanded that Mr Chee repay the sums, after which Mr Chee signed several documents acknowledging payments from Ms Teow and agreeing to repay them.

LOANS OR GIFTS?

Justice Wong observed that arrangements made in a domestic or social context could still give rise to legally binding obligations, but that the individual seeking to enforce an agreement had to prove that the parties intended for their arrangement to have legal consequences.

He said the present case clearly showed that the sums were loans and not gifts.

The High Court Judge pointed out that Mr Chee had conceded on multiple occasions that the sums would be repaid, and found that Mr Chee was not a "credible witness".

"He was evasive and always seemed to have an explanation of why things were said or done, even if those explanations defied objective observation," Justice Wong said.

When asked whether the money was a gift or loan, Mr Chee had described it as a "grey area". Justice Wong found that Mr Chee wanted to stay in this grey area to evade his obligations when it suited him.

In fact, in WhatsApp exchanges with Ms Teow, Mr Chee had conceded that the sums were loans that would be repaid, said Justice Wong. 

In a message on Aug 6, 2023, Mr Chee claimed he was "touched and embarrassed" by her help and promised to "fully repay you for every help you have given me".

In January 2024, he declared to Ms Teow, "I can pay you back every penny".

Likewise, the court found that Ms Teow had clearly indicated her intention to be repaid. She kept a record of the amounts lent to Mr Chee, which the High Court Judge said would not have been necessary if the sums were gifts.

"The defendant’s efforts at deflecting and explaining away what were quite plainly loans that were supposed to be repaid were unconvincing and, at times, incredible," Justice Wong said.

PROJECTED IMAGE OF HIGHER STATUS

The court found that Mr Chee had displayed a "pattern of conduct" aimed at impressing Ms Teow and had projected himself as someone he was not.

Mr Chee had told Ms Teow when they first met that he was "in aviation". During cross examination, he was shown his profile from his tuition agency, where he introduced himself as a "certified airline pilot".

Asked about the profile, Mr Chee vacillated between claims that he did not post the introduction and had no recollection of it.

During exchanges with Ms Teow, Mr Chee also referred to himself as a VIP at hotels and other establishments, but later tried to play down these references.

"In my judgment, the defendant had made numerous statements to the claimant with the intent to impress her and to present himself as an individual of higher importance than what he perceived his status as a tuition teacher and cafe worker," Justice Wong said.

"The claimant’s evidence, which I accept, is that she was taken in by the defendant’s efforts in this regard and, at least partly, this motivated her to lend him money."

DOCUMENTS SIGNED UNDER DURESS?

During the trial, Mr Chee argued that he had signed the acknowledgement documents under duress, saying that Ms Teow had held their relationship hostage and used her family members to harass him.

He produced a letter from a counselling psychologist stating that he was suffering from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.

The court ruled that since the psychologist was not called on to give evidence, no weight should be given to the letter.

Mr Chee also argued that Ms Teow and her family had taken advantage of his "emotional infirmity and his frightened state", which he claimed resulted from their insults and threats, to get him to sign the agreements.

He alleged that Ms Teow's brother had "connections to the underworld in Penang" and had repeatedly threatened to hurt him.

Those allegations emerged as "fabrications", said Justice Wong said, when Mr Chee conceded during cross-examination that Ms Teow's brother had never made direct threats against him.

While Mr Chee also claimed that he was pressured and rushed into signing the acknowledgement, Ms Teow pointed out that Mr Chee had access to legal advice when considering the acknowledgements, showing that he was not under pressure.

Justice Wong found no evidence that Mr Chee was subjected to illegitimate pressure that would entitle him to the defence of duress.

HOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS CALCULATED

According to Ms Teow, she transferred S$208,444 to Mr Chee via PayNow or cash from her savings, S$19,750 through cash advances or withdrawals from her credit cards and S$40,600 through bank balance transfers from her credit cards.

While Mr Chee disputed the amount, the court accepted that S$268,794 had been transferred to him, based on documentary evidence.

Ms Teow said Mr Chee owed her S$89,945.16 for expenses charged to her credit cards, including interest and fees.

The court ultimately assessed the credit card spending, including interest, at S$87,322.40 after declining to overlook a discrepancy in Ms Teow's figures.

Mr Chee argued that he was not liable for interest and fees incurred on the credit cards because Ms Teow had failed to mitigate her loss.

However, the court ruled that Mr Chee had not demonstrated what else Ms Teow could have done to avoid the fees and interest payments, given that she had already exhausted her cash savings.

"On the point that the claimant should have stopped the defendant’s spending sooner, this is putting the cart before the horse as it was well within the defendant’s control to put a pause on his spending habits," Justice Wong said.

After taking into account the S$35,000 repaid by Mr Chee in March 2024, the court found that he owed Ms Teow S$321,116.40.