Anthony Law, PropNex Realty salesperson refute allegations in lawsuit involving 99-1 deal
Source: Business Times
Article Date: 04 Dec 2025
Author: Tay Peck Gek
This is in response to a case filed by a couple over the purchase of a unit at The Gazania.
Anthony Law Corp, which has been sued by a husband and wife over the so-called two-step 99-1 property transaction, alleged that the couple had not sought legal advice from it on the structure.
Meanwhile, Don Tay, the salesperson being sued together with his agency PropNex Realty and Anthony Law, refuted the allegation of him having represented to the couple that the structure was legal and legitimate.
Anthony Law and Tay are responding to a lawsuit from Neo Say Chuan and his wife Tiong Bock Lian that was lodged in early November. PropNex Realty has already filed its defence against the claims.
Neo and Tiong alleged that they were induced by the salesperson’s representations into buying a unit in condominium development The Gazania using the two-step 99-1 structure. Tiong bought the S$2.8 million flat in her sole name on Apr 14, 2022, and then sold a 1 per cent stake to her husband four days later.
In August 2025, the taxman sent them a notice, saying that their property transaction was a case of illegal avoidance of stamp duty. They owed the taxman S$586,172. The sum comprised S$477,360, the 17 per cent additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) liability on the full price of the property, and a 25 per cent surcharge of S$117,234.
Singapore citizens buying their second residential property at that time were required to pay an ABSD of 17 per cent. Neo then was an owner of a Housing & Development Board flat.
If the unit had been bought in the couple’s names from the start, Neo would have had to pay the 17 per cent ABSD on the full price of the unit, and not on only 1 per cent of the purchase price.
The couple alleged that Tay had told them that the two-step 99-1 structure was legal and legitimate, and that Anthony Law had failed to inform them that the arrangement was unlawful or could be viewed as an illegal act of avoiding stamp duty.
As for PropNex Realty, the Neos alleged that it owed them a duty to ensure that its salesperson Tay was well-versed in the law and would not make false representations. The agency is liable for Tay’s misrepresentations as well, the couple argued through WongPartnership’s Gavin Neo.
The couple had already decided on the structure: Anthony Law
Anthony Law denied all the allegations made by the husband and wife. It said it will not pay the S$586,172 being claimed, or comply with the non-monetary remedies or alternative remedy sought, based on its defence filed on Tuesday (Dec 2).
The law firm pointed out that it acted only for Neo Say Chuan for his purchase of a 1 per cent share of the four-room condo unit from his wife, while she was separately represented by Acclaim Law in that transaction.
It alleged that it acted in accordance with the instructions of the claimants, who had already decided beforehand on using the two-step 99-1 structure.
The couple allegedly did not ask Anthony Law for advice, clarification or confirmation on the legality and legitimacy of purchasing a property in a two-step 99-1 structure.
The firm also denied having told them that the structure was legal or legitimate.
But it noted that using the structure is not in and of itself illegal, as a material consideration is the intention of the purchaser in using the structure.
It also claimed it was not informed by Neo Say Chuan and Tiong that they adopted the two-step 99-1 structure with the intention to avoid stamp duty.
Their conduct was illegal and contrary to public policy, and therefore they are precluded from enforcing any rights or recovering any benefits in relation to the transaction, argued Anthony Law through Allen & Gledhill.
Tay alleges he was not representing the claimants
As for Tay, in his defence filed on Nov 26, he alleged that he had told the claimants he was aware that the structure had previously been used by buyers of properties under construction in order to secure a larger quantum of mortgage, and that the law firms that had assisted buyers to use this structure could help others to do this.
But he denied having told the couple that structuring their property transaction using the two-step 99-1 way would reduce the ABSD payable.
He added that he had learnt of the structure from the training sessions conducted by PropNex Realty in 2016 and 2017. He thus reasonably believed that the method was legal and legitimate.
Furthermore, he was aware that Anthony Law and some other law firms assisted buyers to structure their purchases using the arrangement. This made him believe that the two-step 99-1 method was legal and legitimate.
He denied making any representations to Neo Say Chuan and Tiong that the two-step 99-1 arrangement was legal and legitimate. But he had allegedly told them they should consult a law firm, when they expressed concerns about the legality and legitimacy of the structure.
He further denied portraying himself as an experienced real estate salesperson with the requisite expertise on the use and legality of the structure, said his defence filed through Withers KhattarWong.
The claimants were allegedly aware that he was not legally trained or qualified to provide legal advice on the structure.
Additionally, the salesperson denied that he had informed Anthony Law to structure the transaction in the two-step 99-1 arrangement for the couple. He added that only the clients would have the standing to instruct the law firm.
He also alleged that he had inquired with Anthony Law and was told the structure was legitimate after he was asked by Neo Say Chuan and Tiong, who became concerned when they learnt that the taxman was investigating buyers who used the structure to avoid ABSD.
Tay added that he was not representing the couple in the purchase of The Gazania unit – there was no estate agency agreement between them, and he did not pocket any commission from them for the transaction. But he did not elaborate on whether he was acting for someone else.
PropNex Realty denies allegations
PropNex Realty, in its defence earlier filed on Nov 25, denied breaching a duty of care, even if it owed the claimants one. Additionally, the subsidiary of the mainboard-listed PropNex Ltd : OYY 0%, contended that it is not liable to the couple, and that they are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed against it.
It also denied the allegation that it permitted Tay to make representations or encourage Neo Say Chuan and Tiong to engage in illegal arrangements.
It further argued that Tay and its other salespersons were provided with updated information on transaction structures, and trained on developments in the property market, including the applicable ABSD rules and guidelines.
Tay has also agreed to abide by the law and regulations stipulated by the Council for Estate Agencies, added PropNex Realty through Rajah & Tann.
A case conference is slated for Dec 23.
Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1