Finance manager who lent then boyfriend nearly $359,000 wins lawsuit for repayment

SINGAPORE – A finance manager who lent her boyfriend nearly $359,000 while they were in a relationship has succeeded in suing him for repayment of the outstanding debt.

Teow Seok Phen said Chee Wei Jun had asked her to lend him money because his bank account was frozen after he accidentally clicked on a fraudulent link.

She was also taken in by his claims that he was a pilot and came from a wealthy family.

The various sums she transferred to him included almost all her savings, as well as cash advances and withdrawals from her credit cards. She also let him use her credit cards.

On Sept 24, a High Court judge ordered Chee to pay the outstanding debt of more than $321,000 and rejected the man’s claim that the sums were gifts for which there was no obligation to repay.

In his written judgment, Justice Alex Wong said he accepted Teow’s case that the sums were extended as loans and there was no intention to gift.

“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,” he added.

The judge cited numerous WhatsApp messages in which Chee promised to repay the woman.

In one exchange in August 2023, Chee told Teow he was “touched and embarrassed” by her help and promised to “fully repay” her for it.

In another message in January 2024, he declared: “I can pay you back every penny.”

The judge was not convinced by Chee’s answers when he was confronted with these messages during cross-examination.

For example, when asked about his message in relation to the initial $2,000 loan in June 2023, Chee claimed that when he said he would pay it back, he meant that he would pay Teow back in kind, such as taking her out for meals.

But he later conceded during cross-examination that he voluntarily repaid $700 of the $2,000 owed.

The judge said 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.”

For example, when asked to confirm if the sums were gifts or loans, Chee answered that it was a “grey area”.

“In my judgment, the defendant wanted to stay in this grey area of deniability because it allowed him to evade his obligations when it suited him.”

‘No rush’ to repay

The judge added that the exchanges also showed that Teow clearly expected to be repaid.

In one message, she told him there was “no rush” after he asked for her account details.

In another exchange, when he offered to pay more than the amount owed, she said: “Dear (no) need give me extra.”

Teow, a Singapore permanent resident from Malaysia, met Chee, a Singaporean, through an online dating platform in June 2023.

Chee worked at a cafe in addition to being a tutor.

Teow, who was represented by Simon Tan, said Chee portrayed himself as a very affluent person.

She said he told her that he was a commercial airline pilot with several hundred thousand dollars in his bank account and that his father owned successful companies in Singapore and Malaysia.

However, he told her he did not have enough money for daily expenses because of the frozen account.

She said Chee asked her to lend him money, which he would repay once the issue with his account was resolved.

Chee, who was represented by Francis Chan, denied her version of events.

He asserted that Teow understood his financial difficulties and gifted him the sums out of love and affection.

He added that he used her credit cards only once when he hosted his Taiwanese friends in Singapore.

From June 2023 to February 2024, Chee repaid more than $23,000 of the money Teow transferred to him. He also repaid her $35,000 for the use of her credit cards.

By December 2023, she started receiving letters from banks chasing payment for her credit card bills.

In February and March 2024, Teow revealed to her family that Chee had been borrowing money from her.

When he met the family members, they started demanding repayment.

Between March and June 2024, Chee signed various documents acknowledging that he was in debt.

He claimed that these documents were legally invalid as he had signed them under duress and undue influence.

In his judgment, the judge said he accepted Teow’s testimony that she was taken in by Chee’s efforts to impress her and that, at least partly, this motivated her to lend him money.

When they first met, he told her he was “in aviation”. Chee also introduced himself as “a certified airline pilot” in his tutor profile from his tuition agency.

The judge added that Chee, in claiming to have signed the documents under duress, had alleged that Teow’s brother was connected to the underworld in Penang and had repeatedly threatened to hurt him.

“However, these allegations emerged as fabrications as the defendant himself conceded in cross-examination that no direct threats against the defendant were ever made by the claimant’s brother,” said the judge.