Woman gave over S$210,000 to man she thought would marry her; sues and gets money back

Woman gave over S$210,000 to man she thought would marry her; sues and gets money back

SINGAPORE: A woman who transferred more than S$ 210, 000 ( US$ 155, 300 ) over six years to a man she believed would marry her later discovered he had been lying to her and using her money to live a lavish lifestyle.

Ms. Lee Mei Lan successfully sued the gentleman to return the amount and won the case. The defendant, Mr. Derrick Ng Jing Yuan, was given a district judge order to pay her S$ 210,050 in problems and attention as soon as the lawsuit is filed.

According to a ruling made on Thursday ( May 30 ), Ms. Lee first met Mr. Ng in 2008 and assumed she was in a romantic relationship with him from about 2010 to 2020.

In 2014, the 42- year- ancient Malaysian woman began to move about S$ 650 a week to Mr Ng. She did it because she believed that the 41-year-old Malaysian man would be her future husband and that his father would be her future father-in-law.

Mr. Ng claimed at the time that he needed money to pay for his father’s health expenses and had quit his job as an insurance broker. At the time, Ms. Lee was making about S$ 3, 000 per month, with the transfers accounting for almost all of her money.

She claimed in her lawsuit that Mr. Ng had told her repeatedly that his dad was ill and that his sisters had not paid the medical expenses.

Mr. Keith Hsu and Mr. Nico Lee from Emerald Law represented Ms. Lee, who claimed Mr. Ng promised to pay her back.


Ms. Lee hoped that they would finally get married and receive the money back because she was in a sincere connection with Mr. Ng.

They went on dates, discussed having children, purchasing a marriage home, and also shared the chores with Mr. Ng; they also did the chores.

Mr. Ng also referred to them as “man and wife” and said they would be together until “death do us ( part ),” according to Ms. Lee.

Mr. Ng may eventually ask for more money from Ms. Lee and would also beg her to cover his expenses for shopping, Ms. Lee said.

But she began to grow suspicious&nbsp, as he appeared to make mistakes whenever she wanted to meet his family and friends. Additionally, Mr. Ng did not permit her to reach him on WhatsApp, claiming that his coworkers might see it on his desk.

Ms. Lee’s family noticed that her saving were dwindling in August 2019 and dispersed them so she could put money aside for a Housing Board apartment.

She noticed a change in Mr. Lee’s attitude toward her when he informed her that she could no more transfer funds to him. She claimed that he treated her harshly and that he would only words or go out with her when she requested income.


Ms. Lee hired a private inspector to look into Mr. Ng’s past in November 2020. She discovered that he owned a well-renovated HDB apartment and worked for his friend’s business.

He also shared a room there with another person, who appeared to be a pair. Additionally, the personal analyst claimed that Mr. Ng’s economic situation did not appear to be present.

At this point, Ms Lee had transferred Mr Ng a full amount of what she claimed was about S$ 212, 850 over the years. &nbsp,

She requested the cash up after suing him for deception and false representation.


Mr. Ng, who was represented by Mr. Tan Cheng Kiong, asserted that the amount that Mr. Lee claimed was not the same as it was claimed by Ms. Lee.

He acknowledged saying some of the items Ms. Lee had claimed he had told her, as well as his actions toward her as an apparent loving partner.

He claimed that his actions were not false and that the relationship was true. Although they were n’t close, he claimed that Ms. Lee was her only girlfriend at the time.

He claimed that whenever he encountered economic issues, Ms. Lee gave him all of her voluntary contributions. He claimed that Ms. Lee did n’t request payment until the relationship ended, when the lawsuit was brought.

Mr. Ng argued that if the marriage had not been true, it would not have been ten years. He claimed that due to the COVID- 19 crisis, their relations became strained in 2020 and 2021, and this resulted in the collapse of their marriage.

The prosecutor noted that she was a” wronged fan who was upset when he said he was not ready for marriage because of some issues in his professional and personal life.”

Ms. Lee had provided Mr. Ng with the funds she needed to support her situation that was being made up, according to District Judge Jasmin Kaur.

In contrast, Mr Ng did not prove his situation that his images were not misleading.

JUDGE’S Studies

Judge Kaur found Mr. Ng to be an ambiguous see who” constantly shifts in place, giving the impression that he was fabricating evidence as he went along.”

For instance, when questioned about payments made by him in a Subaru car and by Louis Vuitton, he made a change in his responses.

Additionally, he was unable to provide documentation of his mother’s health expenses, which he claimed had resulted in his becoming in debt in 2020.

Mr. Ng drove an expensive sports car, wore labeled clothing, and bought a Rolex see, according to Ms. Lee’s photos. In response, Mr Ng said the pictures did not prove that he owned any of those items.

The judge found this answer “insufficient” as the factual problem had shifted to him, after Ms Lee produced evidence of him leading a luxurious life.

Judge Kaur claimed that Mr. Ng’s credit card statements from November 2017 to January 2020 showed saving on expensive models, entertainment, restaurant meals, car changes, and other costs that were n’t in line with someone who was stricken from the debt of medical expenses.

He also received costly hairdressing almost monthly. Most of these, Mr. Ng responded that he did not remember them or that they were business bills, a state that went unsupported.

Judge Kaur said she was open to the idea that the connection was real in its initial years, but she could not claim the same about the relationship’s final years.


According to the prosecutor, “it appears that the defendant viewed the claimant as nothing more than an ATM” from the evidence.”

She made reference to writings that Ms. Lee sent to Mr. Ng in late 2020, texts that he harshly responded with cash requests.

In the information, Ms Lee begged Mr Ng to” come up” and said she could spoon out some money.

In one text, Ms Lee wrote:” ( You ) have been gone almost 1 year.. I cried every single night.. really every single day ( and ) night.. I really lost all hopes already.. if together for 10 plus years does n’t stop (you ) from finding others. If you believe you wo n’t ever wed me. If there is now another person on your side. Can you help ( me )?… Give ( me ) a clean cut? Split up and I’ll quit awaiting you. ( I’m ) not young anymore”.

Mr. Ng did not inform Ms. Lee that his father passed away in 2018. She informed Mr. Ng that she planned to purchase a home for his relatives so he could see them every day even in 2020, and that she would continue to believe that he was still intact.

The judge ordered Mr Ng to spend Ms Lee S$ 210, 050 in restitution, with curiosity at 5.33 per share from the time of the petition of the match to the time of the view.

She also mandated that Mr. Ng pay Ms. Lee’s$ 50, 000 in GST and about S$ 10,000 in disbursements.