Man uses shell companies to rent landed homes, later defaulting on rent and refusing to move out

SINGAPORE – A man used shell companies to rent three landed homes in Singapore at different times for his family to live in, and then stopped paying rent shortly after moving in, embroiling his landlords in legal processes to avoid moving out.

Anthony Thomas Price, a director and shareholder of Noranth Ventures, had used Noranth Ventures and its wholly owned subsidiary Bundleluxe, to enter into separate agreements with different landlords between 2019 and 2026.

The American man then refused to pay subsequent rent on the grounds of alleged defects in those properties, but Price and his family continued to live in the properties. They also ignored demands to vacate the properties.

In the latest case involving a semi-detached house in Kembangan, Price filed a court application to stop the landlords from taking back possession of their property.

The application was dismissed by a district judge as “wholly without merit”.

In a written judgment on Oct 7, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun said the application was filed “in plain abuse of process of the court”.

Price used legal means “to frustrate the landlords’ efforts to pursue their lawful rights against him, and to further his scheme to rent premises for him and his family with no intention to pay rental”, the judge added.

Lengkong Dua

Price used Noranth Ventures, which had a paid-up capital of $200, to rent a semi-detached house in Lengkong Dua in Kembangan for $7,500 a month for two years, starting from May 1, 2026.

Noranth Ventures was registered under a virtual office address run by an entity known as VOffice Singapore, the court noted.

The landlords Loo Kin Ben and Tong Pek Eng, are an elderly couple in their 80s.

When they tried to repossess their property after Price defaulted on rent from the second month, Price filed a court application to stop them.

The landlords represented by lawyer Brendan Tan Zi Jian from Rajah & Tann Singapore, opposed the application and filed a counterclaim seeking to recover the property, unpaid rent with interest and other outstanding sums.

Under the tenancy agreement dated April 27, there were four authorised occupants of the premise: Price’s wife Lizzy Hashim Price, Nur Fitriqah Mohamad Fitrin, Quraisha de’ Melda Ridzwan and Norai’rin Md Hashim. Price was not named as an authorised occupant, but he also stayed at the property.

Noranth Ventures agreed to pay a security deposit of $15,000, but only $7,500 of the deposit was paid. The company also paid only the first month’s rent and stopped paying rent from June 2026.

Price claimed there were about “35 repair, rectification or practical occupation issues” with the property.

The landlords had resolved 32 of the complaints by June 8, while the remaining drainage-related issues required more extensive work and would take more time to complete, the district judge noted.

Chiah added that the landlords were “accommodating and had taken reasonable steps to resolve the repair items raised by Price, despite rent not been paid”.

The district judge found that Noranth Ventures had breached the tenancy agreement by refusing to pay rent and the landlords had “every right to re-enter the premises”.

He then dismissed Noranth Ventures’ application and allowed the landlords’ counterclaim including possession of the property, unpaid rent, interest and double rent from Aug 15 until vacant possession is handed over to the landlords.

He also ordered the company to pay $15,000 in legal costs and $2,031.98 in disbursements.

Tan from Rajah & Tann Singapore said his “client feels vindicated by the judgment and hopes that the tenants can vacate the property and settle all unpaid amounts immediately”.

“The clients will take the necessary measures to enforce the court judgment,” added Tan.

As at Oct 12, the occupants had not vacated the property.

Similar pattern in earlier cases

In his judgment, the district judge also identified a pattern similar to the Lengkong Dua case in two earlier tenancy disputes involving Price and his companies.

In 2019, Noranth Ventures had rented a landed property in Jalan Selamat for $7,200 a month under a two-year tenancy agreement beginning in September 2019. This property is about 10 minutes’ walk from Lengkong Dua.

As in the most recent case, the company paid only part of the $14,400 security deposit and stopped paying rent after about 1½ months.

The property owner commenced legal action against Price and his company, while Price and his family continued living in the house.

“Price and his family effectively lived in the Jalan Selamat Property rent-free for at least five months,” noted district judge Chiah.

That case was subsequently settled and discontinued. No further details were available in the Oct 7 written judgment.

In another dispute, Price used Bundleluxe, a wholly owned subsidiary of Noranth Ventures, to rent a semi-detached house at Burnfoot Terrace in Siglap for one year, from January 2024.

At the time Bundleluxe, which had a paid-up capital of $1, entered into the tenancy agreement, it had accumulated losses of about $1.34 million between December 2021 and November 2023.

“It was a shell company,” the district judge said.

Price had also cited alleged defects as the reason for not paying rent.

Price and his family continued living in the house despite the landlord’s demands for payment and vacant possession. They eventually moved out on March 18, 2025, more than two months after the tenancy expired.

The district judge noted that the family had stayed rent-free for close to 12 months.

The property owner commenced legal action on February 2025 against Price and Bundleluxe for various breaches and losses suffered. The proceedings are still ongoing as at Oct 7.

Chiah pointed out concerns raised by the landlords in the Lengkong Dua and Burnfoot Terrace cases, that rental arrears might never be recovered because the contracting tenants were shell companies with minimal paid-up capital.

The district judge agreed that the pattern of using shell companies to rent residential premises as observed “is a matter of some concern for landlords in Singapore”.