THE DRAFT May
To evaluate his motives in transferring his funds to Tsang’s Hong Leong Bank accounts, Justice Choo took the contents of Eng’s review did from November 7, 2016, which was the same time he signed the document into account.
He said that Eng’s full assets, which included his liquid assets and an apartment in Hong Kong, may amount to about S$ 12.75 million.
Eng had intended for his daughter to get about$ 4.25 million, while Tsang would get S$ 8.5 million.
In his will, Eng had instructed Tsang to either use the funds from his daughter to buy the residence from him with the proceeds, or to keep the funds in the account entirely while his daughter continued to own the home.
Eng did never sign the document would as he was “probably awaiting Allison’s reply to his letters”, which he sent on Nov 25, 2016 and Feb 13, 2018, said Justice Choo.
Eng had, on Nov 25, 2016, sent an email to request his princess how she wanted the payment to be made. Despite a warning that was sent on February 13, 2018, she did not respond.
The judge continued,” The contents of the draft did are important in assessing Eng’s intentions at the fabric time because he purposefully both had the deed and the will drafted at the same time.”
JUDGE’S RULING
Justice Choo argued in his opinion that Eng’s intentions when drafting the document were related to those of his draft could.
When Eng made the decision to move S$ 8.5 million to Tsang, he added, he wanted to reduce his property’s exposure to the exorbitant property responsibilities.
The S$ 8.5 million was intended to ensure that Tsang would become provided if he were to predecease her, according to the imperative data that was presented above.
Therefore, both the document will and the deed were intended to give impact to the same intent: to facilitate the distribution of his assets following his passing. ”  ,
On the state by the plaintiff’s attorney that the contract was not sealed or delivered, making it illegal,  , Justice Choo Han Teck said it appeared that the original document had not been sealed on the day of murder.
He did point out that the deed was likely to have been sealed after Eng’s lawyer in Singapore gave his client’s account manager at Hong Leong Bank confirmation that it had been done.
Justice Choo added that it is” well- established” that the document is not deemed sealed if the physical manifestation of a seal is present.
Instead, the key was whether Eng had accepted and recognized the document as his deed and had the necessary intention to carry it out.
Justice Choo noted that Eng’s intention to execute the deed was sufficiently indicated after reviewing the email correspondence between Eng and his attorney.
He also refuted the defense’s claim that the defendant’s lawyer was claiming that the deed was not delivered, arguing instead that the term “act of delivery” refers to the delivery intentions rather than the actual transfer of possession.  ,
Justice Choo also noted that the former’s intention was bound by the deed in the email correspondence between Eng and his lawyer, and that it was also noted that it was sent to his account manager at Hong Leong Bank.
” Accordingly, I find that the deed is a valid and enforceable gift,” the judge said.
Justice Choo also rejected the claim that the deed’s real purpose was to fulfill Hong Leong Bank’s requirement.
He determined that” for all intents and purposes”, the money in the Hong Leong accounts formed , part of the gift of S$ 8.5 million from Eng to Tsang.
It is likely that Eng, who was actually in charge at the time of writing this article in October 2016, had an overall S$ 8.5 million from all of his Hong Leong Bank accounts that were run in various foreign currencies.
However, given that the Hong Leong Account was only established in January 2017, it was likely that the exchange rates for those currencies had dropped over the following months, resulting in a total sum of S$ 8.2 million as of January 25, 2017.
Justice Choo questioned whether Tsang is entitled to recover money from the balance in the Hong Leong account after the shortfall of S$ 8.5 million was discovered.
This was because Tsang had already closed the bank account in question, and according to rumors, it’s still unclear when Tsang closed the account and what the balance was when she did it.
” Tsang could have readily provided such proof. He claimed that the fact that Tsang had closed the account was n’t made public until the first day of the trial.
Justice Choo continued,” It’s difficult for me to find in her favor because of Tsang’s lack of evidence.”  ,
He added that the funds in the Hong Leong account could very well have increased after Eng’s death given the fluctuating nature of the exchange rates.
However, the judge decided that Tsang was entitled to retain the$ 7.91 million that was still in the Hong Leong Account prior to closing it.  ,
Should neither party come to an agreement, the cost issue will be heard at a later time.  ,