SINGAPORE – A married businessman from China who was wooing a flight attendant purchased her a $3 million condo at The Interlace as a birthday current, and on the day she signed the acquisition paperwork, informed her to order a Mercedes-Benz of her selection.
After they started their affair, Mr Xu Zhigang transferred two sums totalling US$9.6 million (S$13 million) to Ms Wang Fang, in July 2014 and February 2015. Their relationship led to November 2017.
Final yr, Mr Xu sued his former mistress to get again the cash, the condo and the automobile, claiming that she was holding them on belief for him.
Ms Wang, who refused to return the property, argued that they have been presents.
On Thursday (Nov 19), Mr Xu largely succeeded in his declare to get again the cash, after the Excessive Court docket allowed him to get better about US$9.4 million from Ms Wang.
In a written judgment, Justice Audrey Lim accepted Mr Xu’s rationalization that the sums of cash have been moved to Ms Wang for non permanent safekeeping, as his firms in China have been going through monetary difficulties on the time.
Nonetheless, the decide dismissed Mr Xu’s claims on the condo and the automobile, which she concluded have been supposed to be presents.
Mr Xu, who’s in his 40s, was, however is now not, the primary shareholder of Eastport Petrochemical (Singapore).
He first met Ms Wang on a flight in 2011, and after they reconnected in September 2013, the pair saved in frequent contact.
Even earlier than they started a romantic relationship in February 2014, Mr Xu plied her with presents and advantages. This included the usage of his ATM card linked to his checking account the place his wage from Eastport of $20,000 per 30 days was deposited.
Between December 2013 and February 2014, Mr Xu transferred $4.2 million to Ms Wang to purchase the condo and the automobile, each of which have been registered in her title.
In January 2014, when Ms Wang was working with United Abroad Financial institution, Mr Xu received a job for her at his firm.
She was paid a wage of $10,000 a month between April 2014 and June 2016 at Eastport, though she didn’t do any substantive work.
Round February 2014, Ms Wang found that Mr Xu had had a relationship with a girl named Wang Cong, however he assured her that he was now not seeing the opposite girl, who labored at his firm.
In his lawsuit, Mr Xu, who was represented by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, claimed he had purchased the condo for Ms Wang to enhance her dwelling situations, as he regarded her as an in depth pal and sibling.
He mentioned the condo was registered in her title out of comfort, as she lived in Singapore and he needed her to assist him deal with issues regarding its buy, renovation and becoming.
Mr Xu mentioned he purchased the automobile, as he wanted to satisfy clients in Singapore and didn’t have an organization automobile. He mentioned he informed Ms Wang he would let her drive it, not that he was shopping for it for her.
He mentioned the automobile was equally registered in her title in order that she might deal with administrative issues regarding the car.
Ms Wang, who was represented by Senior Counsel Lee Eng Beng, mentioned after she signed the choice to buy the condo on Dec 12, 2013, Mr Xu took her to a automobile showroom.
The mannequin she needed was not obtainable on the time however she finally purchased the automobile in January 2014.
Justice Lim mentioned Ms Wang’s model was supported by surrounding circumstances, whereas Mr Xu’s rationalization was unconvincing.
Nonetheless, the decide accepted Mr Xu’s rationalization that he had transferred US$2.6 million to Ms Wang as a part of a share switch plan to insulate Eastport from any dangers that may come up resulting from his troubles in China.
Justice Lim mentioned there was additionally documentary and contextual proof to help Mr Xu’s rationalization that he had transferred US$7 million to Ms Wang to maintain funds out of attain of potential collectors in China, and to allow him to restart his enterprise exterior China.
The decide mentioned Ms Wang’s model, that Mr Xu gave her the cash to indicate his sincerity and gratitude for staying with him and to present her a way of safety, was not credible.
Amongst different issues, the decide famous that Ms Wang had made a number of references to Mr Xu’s presents in her journal entries.
As an illustration, in December 2013, Ms Wang recorded: “A person buys a home and a automobile for you unconditionally inside three months. This type of factor solely occurs if the 2 get married on the spur of the second.”
Nonetheless, Ms Wang made no point out of receiving US$2.6 million in a journal entry she wrote three days after that sum was transferred to her, through which she was crucial of Mr Xu.
“Additionally it is inexplicable that Wang had described herself as struggling and being disenchanted with Xu. These have been unusual reactions from somebody who had simply allegedly acquired a US$2.6 million reward,” mentioned the decide.
This text was first printed in The Straits Instances.