The Singapore High Court has ordered a businessman in the metal trading sector to freeze assets amounting to S$7.56 million, citing concerns that funds owed to his former wife under a divorce settlement could be dissipated.
The sum represents the outstanding balance of a S$20 million consent order agreed upon during the couple’s divorce proceedings. Justice Choo Han Teck ruled that there was sufficient risk that enforcement of the settlement might be frustrated without urgent preservation of assets.
Divorce Settlement Reached Through Mediation
The couple, who married in India in 2004 and have two children, divorced in Singapore after the wife filed proceedings in February 2022. Interim judgment was granted in September that year.
Following private mediation, ancillary matters were resolved and recorded in a consent order dated March 21, 2023. Under the agreement, the husband was to pay S$20 million by June 2027 through monthly instalments of S$312,500. He was also responsible for servicing the mortgage on the matrimonial home where his former wife and children reside, along with reasonable household expenses until full payment was completed.
Missed Payments and Refinancing Raise Red Flags
The arrangement began to unravel when the businessman allegedly failed to keep up with instalments. In November 2024, after five consecutive missed payments, the wife sought to vary the consent order, requesting immediate settlement of the remaining balance or accelerated payment terms.
She also flagged concerns over the refinancing of a bungalow. An earlier mortgage of approximately S$8 to S$9 million had been replaced with a new S$29.5 million loan, substantially reducing the property’s net equity.
Justice Choo dismissed her variation application in May 2025, stating that non-compliance alone did not render the consent order unworkable. However, he required the husband to provide assurances of compliance and to give notice before utilising loan proceeds.
Dubai Move and Asset Concerns
In September 2025, the wife escalated the matter by applying for a domestic Mareva injunction to prevent her former husband from dealing with assets within Singapore.
A Mareva injunction freezes assets to prevent disposal or transfer while legal obligations remain unresolved. In matrimonial disputes, it serves to ensure that settlement sums are not undermined by financial restructuring or asset transfers.
The application was prompted by arrears of around S$300,000 and the wife’s discovery that the businessman allegedly intended to relocate to Dubai, had listed the bungalow for sale, and had access to most of the refinancing funds.
He denied plans to move, describing his Dubai visits as routine business travel and claiming the property listing was an administrative error. An interim order was granted in October 2025, restricting dealings with the bungalow while accounts of the loan proceeds were examined.
“Unusual and Unexplained” Movement of Funds
Central to the court’s concern was the handling of S$18.3 million drawn from the refinancing facility. The businessman withdrew the amount in two tranches — S$5.1 million and S$13.2 million — transferring S$18.2 million to his company.
He maintained that this represented repayment of a S$15.9 million debt owed to the company. However, the court found no clear explanation for the additional S$2.2 million.
Justice Choo observed that the second tranche was debited on the same day it was credited, and documentation for the first tranche was incomplete. He described the movement of funds as “unusual and unexplained”, raising questions about transparency in the defendant’s financial conduct.
The judge also pointed to a recurring pattern of delayed payments since May 2025, noting that instalments were only settled after enforcement measures such as writs of seizure and sale were initiated. He characterised this as a troubling pattern of non-compliance followed by reactive payment under threat.
Court Orders Asset Preservation
Rejecting the husband’s argument that freezing the full outstanding sum would amount to improper security, Justice Choo clarified that the order was intended to preserve assets, not create additional obligations.
On February 5, the court granted a Mareva injunction restraining the businessman from disposing of assets up to S$7,564,092.50 — the remaining balance owed. He was further directed to deposit the funds with his solicitors within 30 days, to be held on trust and released to his former wife according to the agreed monthly schedule until June 2027.
The ruling underscores the court’s readiness to intervene where there is a credible risk that compliance with judicial orders may be undermined.
