SINGAPORE: A boss who left Great Eastern Financial Advisers to take over the management of an AIA Singapore group offered to take over as his former subordinate and offered to pay some of his debts to make the junior’s change.
However, the subordinate failed to repay S$ 12, 000 ( US$ 9, 200 ) of the loan, and the team leader sued him to claim it back.
The subordinate claimed that the group leader was unable to recover the outstanding amount because the product was” for illegal reasons” to persuade AIA in its evaluation of his financial viability.
A judge rejected the claim that the loan was illegal in a judgment made public on Wednesday ( October 9 ). He mandated that the money be repaid, with curiosity at 5.33 per cent per year from the beginning of the state to the view.
THE Event
The claim, Mr Chong Kuan Siong, second got to know the plaintiff, Mr Lennard Goh Boon Kiat, in February 2018 when they worked for Unioracle Alliance, a financial service organization.
From June 2019 to November 2021, they were even coworkers at Great Eastern Financial Advisers, where Mr Goh was a financial advisor reporting to Mr Chong, his boss.
On Nov 2, 2021, Mr Chong left Great Eastern to meet AIA Singapore.  ,
He made the decision to hire Mr. Goh to meet his AIA staff several weeks later, in May 2022. In reply, Mr Goh resigned from Great Eastern on May 29, 2022.
In October 2022, AIA sent a letter of intent to Mr. Goh, a place as economic service manager, with certain requirements.
These include passing a financial integrity check, which required that Mr. Goh’s personal debt for unsecured loans be no more than S$ 30, 000.
Mr. Goh informed Mr. Chong that he owed more than S$ 60,000 in unsecured debts, generally as debts from credit cards.
In response, Mr Chong extended a specific product of S$ 24, 000 to Mr Goh, to support him discharge his debts.  ,
Mr Goh took up the product and ultimately cleared all of AIA’s “fit and appropriate people” assessments.
He eventually made several payments to Mr Chong, but left an amount of S$ 12, 000 excellent.
Mr Chong therefore sued Mr Goh to get the S$ 12, 000 up.
ENFORCEABLE?
The mortgage contract was entered into with the intention of deceiving the AIA of its assessment of Mr. Goh’s financial viability, according to Mr. Michael Ng and Mr. Clement Yong from Beyond Legal, and it was not binding, according to Mr. Goh’s attorneys, Mr.
They claimed that the loan did not actually lower Mr. Goh’s level of unsecured debt and that it was only used to cover up his actual debt in order to defraud the Monetary Authority of Singapore ( MAS ) and deceive AIA.
Mr Chong’s group of doctors from Shook Lin &, Bok, comprising Mr Lin Ruizi, Ms Denise Yong and Ms Nikhita Mulani, argued that the mortgage contract was legal.
Mr. Goh’s problem was to demonstrate that the loan deal was a deal that fell under an established circumstance where the goal was to undertake an illegal act, and Mr. Goh had failed to do so, according to the attorneys.
District Judge Chiah Kok Khun pointed to an AIA email that stated there was no requirement for Mr. Goh to declare that he had” no unsecured debt owed to people other than financial establishments.”
He said there was “nothing unpleasant” in Mr Chong assisting Mr Goh to lower his debt to financial institutions.
The prosecutor argued that the defendant’s ability to pass the financial soundness analysis does not violate the loan’s purpose.
The defendant’s correct amount of unsecured debts were not the object of the loan’s giving, in order to deceive AIA into thinking the plaintiff had passed the financial soundness assessment.
He continued,” It is of relevance to bear in mind that borrowing money to pay off bills is not illegitimate.”
” Refinancing a mortgage is no per se illegitimate, as the plaintiff admits”, added the judge.
He found there was” no purpose” why the loan contract was not legal.
He ordered Mr Goh to give Mr Lee charges of S$ 3, 500, on top of repaying the owed amounts of S$ 12, 000, with curiosity.
According to a method implemented in the State Courts to speed up the settlement of disputes where parties are at odds, the situation was tried on a documents-only base.