[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A married Chinese businessman who was courting a flight attendant bought him a $ 3 million apartment at The Interlace as a birthday present, and on the day he signed the purchase documents, told him to order a Mercedes-Benz from his choice.
After they began their adventure, Mr. Xu Zhigang transferred two sums totaling US $ 9.6 million (S $ 13 million) to Ms. Wang Fang in July 2014 and February 2015. Their relationship ended in November 2017.
Last year, Xu sued his former lover to get the money, the apartment and the car back, claiming that she had them in custody for him.
Ms. Wang, who refused to return the assets, argued that they were gifts.
On Thursday (November 19), Xu was largely successful in his claim to get the money back, after the High Court allowed him to recover about $ 9.4 million from Ms. Wang.
In a written judgment, Judge Audrey Lim accepted Mr. Xu’s explanation that the sums of money were transferred to Ms. Wang for temporary custody, as their companies in China were facing financial difficulties at the time.
However, the judge dismissed Mr. Xu’s claims about the apartment and the car, which concluded that they were intended to be gifts.
Xu, who is 40, used to be, but is no longer, the largest shareholder in Eastport Petrochemical (Singapore).
He met Ms. Wang on a flight in 2011, and after they reconnected in September 2013, the couple maintained frequent contact.
Even before they began a romantic relationship in February 2014, Xu offered her gifts and benefits. This included the use of his ATM card linked to his bank account where his Eastport salary of $ 20,000 per month was deposited.
Between December 2013 and February 2014, Mr. Xu transferred $ 4.2 million to Ms. Wang to purchase the apartment and the car, both registered in her name.
[[nid:459282]]In January 2014, when Ms. Wang worked with United Overseas Bank, Mr. Xu found her a job at his company.
He was paid a salary of $ 10,000 a month between April 2014 and June 2016 at Eastport, although he did not do any substantial work.
Around February 2014, Wang discovered that Xu had been in a relationship with a woman named Wang Cong, but assured her that he was no longer seeing the other woman, who worked at his company.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Xu, who was represented by lead attorney Tan Chee Meng, claimed that he had bought the apartment for Ms. Wang to improve her living conditions, as he considered her a close friend and sister.
She said the apartment was registered in her name for convenience, as she lived in Singapore and wanted her to help him handle matters related to its purchase, renovation and assembly.
Xu said he bought the car as he needed to meet with clients in Singapore and did not have a company car. He said he told Ms. Wang that he would let her drive it, not that he was buying it for her.
She said the car was registered similarly to her name so that she could handle administrative matters related to the vehicle.
Wang, who was represented by lead attorney Lee Eng Beng, said that after she signed the option to buy the apartment on December 12, 2013, Mr. Xu took her to a car showroom.
The model he wanted was not available at the time, but he finally bought the car in January 2014.
Judge Lim said that Wang’s version was supported by the surrounding circumstances, while Xu’s explanation was unconvincing.
However, the judge accepted Mr. Xu’s explanation that he had transferred US $ 2.6 million to Ms. Wang as part of a stock transfer plan to insulate Eastport from any risks that might arise due to its problems. in China.
Judge Lim said there was also documentary and contextual evidence to support Xu’s explanation that he had transferred US $ 7 million to Wang to keep the funds out of the reach of potential creditors in China and allow him to restart his business outside of China.
The judge said that Ms. Wang’s version that Mr. Xu gave her the money to show his sincerity and gratitude for staying with him and giving him a sense of security was not credible.
Among other things, the judge noted that Ms. Wang had made multiple references to Mr. Xu’s gifts in her diary entries.
For example, in December 2013, Ms. Wang recorded, “A man buys you a house and a car unconditionally in three months. This kind of thing only happens if the two of you marry spontaneously.”
However, Ms. Wang did not mention receiving US $ 2.6 million in a journal entry that she wrote three days after that sum was transferred to her, in which she criticized Mr. Xu.
“It is also inexplicable that Wang described herself as suffering and disappointed in Xu. It was strange reactions from someone who had allegedly just received a gift of 2.6 million dollars,” the judge said.
This article was first published in The times of the strait.
