SINGAPORE: A professional engineer who earned more than S$660,000 over two years but lost even more at the casino has been ordered to repay S$578,000 to a former lover after a High Court dispute over an S$800,000 loan.
In a judgment delivered on 5 January 2026, Senior Judge Chan Seng Onn rejected Chan Tuck Cheong’s claim that a loan acknowledgment he signed was created to mislead Sin’s then-husband.
Instead, the court found that Sin Wee Hiong had genuinely lent him S$800,000 in 2013, and that subsequent transfers between them left Chan owing S$578,000.
From business partners to former lovers
The relationship began in 1993 and lasted until around mid-2022. Chan joined engineering consultancy TC Sin & Associates in 1990, under Sin’s father. He became a partner in 1999. Sin, who handled administrative and financial work, later also became a partner.
Both were married when their affair began and frequently gambled together at Resorts World Sentosa.
After the relationship ended, they disputed their money transfers. Chan claimed he had lent Sin S$495,000 from 2017 to 2021 and received only S$273,000 back. He demanded the remaining S$222,000.
Sin told the court the position was reversed. She said the S$495,000 represented repayments of money she had advanced, including an initial S$800,000 loan and another S$273,000 in smaller loans.
High earnings, even higher gambling losses
Casino records proved especially damaging to Chan’s evidence.
His Resorts World Sentosa losses amounted to S$317,747 in 2013 and S$365,034 in 2014, a combined S$682,781. The court recorded his income for those years as S$319,378 and S$341,932 respectively, totalling S$661,310.
His recorded casino losses thus exceeded his income, even before living and business expenses. He had also lost S$276,528 gambling in 2012.
Yet Chan initially testified that he was not a big gambler, mainly accompanied Sin to the casino and had lost only about S$200,000 over the years. The documentary records contradicted that account.
On Chan’s account, excluding the disputed loan, the judge estimated a S$414,052 cash shortfall for 2013 and 2014. Although Chan pointed to substantial earlier earnings, he produced no documentary proof that those earnings remained available as savings.
Sin’s evidence was not flawless either. Her casino card recorded large losses, and the judge found she had played down her gambling. The judge nevertheless found that family support, savings and insurance proceeds could explain much of her estimated cash shortfall.
The signature that became central to the case
The crucial document, dated 29 May 2013, stated that Chan had obtained an S$800,000 loan, repayable by 31 December 2014 with annual interest of 3.5 per cent. Chan admitted signing it.
Sin said she and her then-husband had remortgaged their Teow Hock Avenue property for S$1.26 million so she could lend Chan money for the redevelopment of his Ernani Street property.
Chan said no S$800,000 changed hands. He alleged the acknowledgment was a sham designed to convince Sin’s husband that their remortgage proceeds were being lent out rather than used by Sin.
Why the court rejected the sham explanation
The judge found the written terms consistent with a real loan. The interest rate could cover the mortgage interest, while the repayment period broadly matched the proposed property redevelopment.
Chan struggled to explain why he would sign such a substantial document without questioning the supposed deception. Sin’s apparent ignorance of a separate S$800,000 construction loan Chan later obtained also supported her account.
Contemporaneous bank records of the original transfer were unavailable. Even so, the signed receipt and surrounding evidence persuaded the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the money had been paid.
The judge acknowledged weaknesses in Sin’s evidence, including inconsistencies about transfers and unsupported claims involving other companies. But Chan failed to establish the shared intention to deceive required to prove a sham.
The court treated S$495,000 paid by Chan as repayments and S$273,000 transferred by Sin as additional loans, leaving S$578,000 outstanding.
Chan’s S$222,000 claim was dismissed. He must also pay contractual interest on the outstanding portion of the original loan, post-judgment interest at 5.33 per cent a year on unpaid sums, and costs. The court rejected his argument that the older loan was time-barred, finding that partial repayment had restarted the six-year limitation period.
Source: Chan Tuck Cheong v Sin Wee Hiong [2026] SGHC 1, Singapore High Court
Looking for a new bed mattress? Check out this handy guide before you buy one.
