Singapore—The High Court has ruled in favour of a man who seeks the return of $1.62 million that he lent without interest to an old friend.
The friend claimed he had only borrowed S$550,000 but paid back S$1.5 million in all with interest, The Straits Times reports.
The loans were made in cash without any written agreement.
In his judgment last week, High Court judge Chan Seng Onn decided in favour of Mr Teo Yong Soon, who lent the money to Mr Kwan Yuen Heng.
The judge allowed Mr Teo to sue Mr Kwan to get back the S$1.62 million.
Mr Teo, a renovation contractor, and Mr Kwan, an accountant who owns several properties, have known each other since 1997.
Friends for over two decades, they had commercial dealings with each other.
Mr Teo, the renovation contractor, and his wife invested S$200,000 with Mr Kwan, the accountant, in 2008 and within a year got back S$289,350.
Mr Kwan hired Mr Teo for the renovation of his properties—two apartments and a commercial unit—over a period of nine years.
The contractor also acted as an agent in brokering property deals for Mr Kwan’s clients.
At one point, Mr Teo stood as a guarantor for S$800,000 that Mr Kwan owed to Malaysian loan sharks.
Mr Teo also lent money to his friend without details put in writing since he considered Mr Kwan a “brother” and believed he would be repaid.
Mr Teo showed the court his bank statements from Nov 13, 2014, till Oct 20, 2017, proving he had made seven withdrawals in cash. Mr Kwan needed to borrow money because investors backed out of his projects and he had to bear legal costs and pay the salaries of his workers.
However, according to Mr Kwan, under the law, his friend is an unlicensed moneylender, and the loans made by Mr Teo were unenforceable because he had been required to pay interest.
He used text messages as proof that his friend was pursuing him for interest payments.
He claimed that he had been forced to repay his friend with interest after he declined the property deals proposed by Mr Teo. He added that his friend had threatened not only him but his family as well.
However, the judge found the contractor’s account of the dealings more plausible.
Justice Chan pointed out that the accountant had issued post-dated cheques for a total sum that matched the loan quantum, which is proof of intended repayment or an assurance of repayment.
Additionally, the judge noted that a police report filed by Mr Kwan in June 2018 against his friend contradicted what he said in court. Justice Chan also pointed out that Mr Kwan did not show proof that he had repaid any of his loans to Mr Teo.
/TISG
Mistress sued by businessman for over S$2million he calls it a loan, she calls it a gift