As most people know, family courts consider both assets and liabilities when approaching alimony, property division, and child support. An individual might have millions in assets and a six-figure income, but all of this wealth could be canceled out by excessive debts. This logic holds true not just in the United States but also in many other countries. Spouses across the world may try to artificially inflate their liabilities in an attempt to pursue better divorce outcomes. This is exactly what a businessman in Singapore allegedly did, and his specific method was quite unique.
Ex-Wife Sues Businessman in Sham Lawsuit, Claiming Losses Based on Oral Agreement
In January of 2025, Asia One reported that a judge had uncovered a “sham lawsuit” intended to reduce a businessman’s assets prior to his divorce in Singapore. According to this report, the ex-wife sued the businessman in 2023 – one year after his new wife had filed for divorce. In her lawsuit, she claimed that the businessman never compensated her for shares in his company, which she transferred to him based on an “oral agreement” that they never put into writing. She claimed damages in excess of $13.7 million.
The second wife became suspicious when her husband did not even bother to contest the lawsuit or raise a meaningful defense. She eventually argued that the oral agreement never actually occurred and the entire lawsuit was fraudulent. She seems to have seen straight through the ploy, and she fully accused her husband of trying to artificially reduce his on-paper assets while approaching their divorce.
The judge presiding over this case agreed with the second wife. She found absolutely no evidence of the oral agreement, and she accused the ex-wife and the businessman of concocting the scheme in secret.
This lawsuit only scratches the surface of an extremely complex dynamic between these three individuals. The businessman set up his company during his first marriage and transferred 25% of its shares to his first wife. He then began an affair with his future second wife, who was serving as a manager of the company at the time. Shortly after filing for divorce, the businessman transferred most of his shares to his future second wife.
After the company’s share capital was increased, the businessman received additional shares. All three individuals owned shares in the company, with the businessman holding the majority. The women then transferred their shares to the businessman, who sold the company to a Japanese firm.
This was the basis of the allegedly fraudulent lawsuit – as the first wife claims she never received her fair share of the company’s sale to the Japanese firm. She claimed that she was supposed to receive 25% of the sale. However, the judge pointed out that she only ever owned 10% of the shares, so this clearly did not add up. In addition, the judge claimed that neither woman ever really owned their shares, and they held them beneficially on behalf of the businessman.