Police investigating case of man who used shell companies to rent landed homes

SINGAPORE – The police are investigating the case of a man who used shell companies to rent three landed homes in Singapore at different times for him and his family to live in, Senior Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai said on Nov 4.

Murali told Parliament that the offence of cheating is punishable with a jail term of up to 10 years, and a fine or caning, or both.

“The official receiver is also investigating possible fraudulent trading and wrongful trading offences, and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority is also looking into potential breaches of the Companies Act by the relevant entities and individuals,” he said, adding he could not say more due to ongoing investigations.

Murali was responding to MPs who asked about stronger protection for landlords from tenants who stop paying rent and refuse to move out.

The Straits Times reported on Oct 12 that American Anthony Thomas Price, a director and shareholder of Noranth Ventures, had used the company and its wholly owned subsidiary Bundleluxe, to enter into separate agreements with different landlords between 2019 and 2026.

Shortly after moving in, Price stopped paying rent and embroiled his landlords in legal processes to avoid moving out.

As at Nov 4, he has still “refused to vacate the premise” of the property he rented most recently, according to the landlord.

In this case, Price had used Noranth Ventures, a company with $200 in paid-up capital, to rent a semi-detached house in Lengkong Dua in Kembangan, from an elderly couple in their 80s.

Price paid half the deposit and only one month’s rent in May 2026. To avoid moving out, Price filed a court application to stop his landlords from repossessing the property.

In a written judgment on Oct 7, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the application, calling it a “plain abuse of process of the court” and allowed the landlords counterclaims of recovering the property, unpaid rent with interest and other outstanding sums.

The district judge also identified a similar pattern in two earlier tenancy disputes over landed homes involving Price and his companies.

WP’s Louis Chua (Sengkang GRC) asked whether the Law Ministry would consider introducing expedited procedures for landlords to regain possession of residential properties when tenants fail to pay rent for a prescribed period, particularly when the tenancy agreement is signed by a company.

He also sought figures on the number of residential tenancy claims involving companies that failed to pay rent and how many of these cases involved judgment sum that remained unrecovered.

In response, Murali said it would be unfair if repossession of a property is the default outcome, or even automatic, whenever rent is unpaid for a prescribed period, as some tenants may face genuine hardship or are disputing rental claims in good faith.

“Not every tenant who falls behind is acting in bad faith,” said Murali.

He said the courts do not track data on companies that failed to pay rent, or on whether judgment sums are recovered.

Data from the Small Claims Tribunals’ filing system showed that each year from 2021 to 2025, there were about 1,100 to 1,840 claims relating to residential leases, he said. Of these, about 1% to 2%, or 14 to 40 claims a year, involved cases where the claimant indicated “rental arrears” and the respondent party was a company or other entity.

Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) asked about the possibility of holding company directors personally liable for unpaid rent, or mandate personal guarantees when companies enter residential tenancy agreements.

He also asked what legal safeguards are available to prevent individuals from exploiting corporate structures to delay eviction and the recovery of property.

In response, Murali said many companies lease residential properties for legitimate reasons, for example, to house employees posted to Singapore; making personal guarantees mandatory for corporate tenancies would restrict such arrangements.

He added that such a requirement might also fail to deter individuals intent on cheating, as they could appoint directors with no assets to provide the guarantees.

“Landlords are already free to require personal guarantees from directors or other individuals before leasing their properties to companies, if they wish. They can decide whether to do so, based on their assessment of the risks of each tenancy,” said Murali.

Existing laws already provide safeguards against companies being used as a cover for fraud, or to evade liabilities. While the company is liable for the commercial obligations it entered into, the courts can hold individuals personally responsible for company’s debt, in cases such as fraudulent or wrongful trading, he added.