Businessman’s assets frozen to cover remaining $7.6m of $20m divorce settlement

When their 18-year marriage ended, a businessman and his former wife reached a divorce settlement in which he agreed to pay her $20 million through monthly payments over four years.

But the payments started becoming overdue and he made some financial moves that she said were suspicious.

In September 2025, the woman applied to the High Court for a freezing order, known as a Mareva injunction, to restrain the man from disposing of or dealing with his assets in Singapore.

On Feb 5, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck ordered the man’s assets to be frozen up to the value of $7.6 million, which was the outstanding balance of the payments due to the woman.

The judge ordered the man to entrust these funds with his lawyers within 30 days to cover all the remaining monthly payments until June 2027, so that the money could be disbursed to the woman as scheduled.

In her application for the freezing order, the woman highlighted her former husband’s plans to move to Dubai, the listing of his bungalow for sale, and the suspicious handling of $18.3 million that was released to him after he refinanced the property.

The man withdrew the sum in two tranches – of $5.1 million and $13.2 million – and transferred $18.2 million to his company.

He claimed that this was done because he owed his company about $15.9 million, but could not explain why he paid $2.2 million in excess of the alleged debt.

“This is an unusual and unexplained movement of funds suggesting an element of dishonesty in the defendant’s financial dealings,” Justice Choo said in his judgment.

The judge also noted that no bank statement was provided to show the first tranche being credited to the company, and although the second tranche was credited, it was immediately debited on the same day.

He said the man’s pattern of non-compliance, late payments and untruthfulness in his financial dealings had forced the woman to pursue multiple enforcement proceedings for fear of not receiving the sum due to her.

This was a sum that both parties had agreed was her fair share of matrimonial assets to rebuild her life after divorce, he noted.

“In my view, the defendant’s own actions have created the very dissipation risk that now necessitates Mareva relief to prevent a frustration of the consent order,” said the judge.

The man, who is in the metal trading industry, and the woman married in India in 2004. They have two children.

In February 2022, the homemaker filed for divorce in Singapore, and interim judgment was granted in September that year.

The couple attended private mediation and reached a settlement on the ancillary matters, which was recorded by the court as a consent order in March 2023.

Under the consent order, he was to pay her $20 million by June 2027 through monthly payments of $312,500, to make mortgage payments for the matrimonial property where she and the children lived, and to bear the reasonable costs of her personal and household expenses pending her receipt of the full sum.

On Nov 25, 2024, the woman applied to the court to ask for either an immediate lump sum payment of the outstanding amount or accelerated payment terms.

She said the man stopped the monthly payments for five months and refinanced his bungalow by replacing an existing mortgage of between $8 million and $9 million with a new $29.5 million loan, which significantly diminished the property’s net value.

Justice Choo dismissed her application on May 23, 2025, saying that the man’s unwillingness to comply did not warrant a variation of the consent order.

However, the judge ordered the man to provide satisfactory assurance that he would comply with the consent order and to give seven days’ notice before he used the loan proceeds of $20.5 million.

On Sept 30, 2025, the woman applied for a freezing order to restrain the man from disposing of or dealing with his assets in Singapore up to the value of about $9.2 million.

This was prompted by about $300,000 in overdue payments as well as her discovery that the man had intentions of moving to Dubai, had put the bungalow up for sale, and that most of the loan monies had been released to him.

Justice Choo made an interim order on Oct 3, 2025, restraining the man’s dealings with the bungalow.

Negotiations between the former spouses fell through, and the woman went ahead to seek a freezing order for a reduced sum of $7.6 million because the man later made some payments.

The woman’s lawyer, Mr Kok Yee Keong, argued that there was a real risk of the man dissipating his assets with the intention of depriving his client of the payments that were due.

This was evidenced by the man’s intention to move to Dubai, which was supported by his golden visa, a programme that allows foreigners to live in the United Arab Emirates, and his listing of the bungalow.

The lawyer also argued that the man was “asset stripping” by withdrawing $18.3 million of the loan proceeds to line his own pocket without any accountability.

The man’s lawyer, Mr Godwin Campos, argued that the bungalow’s listing was “an administrative error by the estate agent”, that the man was travelling to Dubai for normal business trips, and that the loan transactions are legitimate business dealings.

Justice Choo noted that the man has consistently failed to make timely payments since May 2025.

The woman had to obtain a writ of seizure and sale on two occasions to get him to pay the sums for July and September 2025. The payments for the next two months were also late.

“This is a troubling pattern of non-compliance followed by reactive payments when threatened with enforcement action. This is not the conduct of a person acting in good faith,” said the judge.

Justice Choo added that he found it hard to believe the bungalow was listed for sale by accident.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

XNG v XNH [2026] SGHCF 3

Huttons Asia, property agent, law firm sued over 99-1 deal for condo bought by foreigner and student