Singapore court freezes businessman’s assets to cover remainder of $15.8M divorce settlement

The order, issued by High Court Judge Choo Han Teck earlier this month, bars the man from disposing of, dealing with, or reducing his assets up to S$7.56 million, the outstanding balance from the settlement, according to a court document on Singapore’s eLitigation portal.

The couple, who married in India in 2004 and have two children, divorced in Singapore after the woman filed for divorce in February 2022.

During the proceedings, they reached a consent order under which he agreed to pay her S$20 million in monthly installments of S$312,500 over four years.

He was also required to pay the mortgage for the matrimonial home where his ex-wife and their children live and reasonable household expenses until the settlement was fully paid, Mothership reported.

But the businessman later began missing installments and the ex-wife raised concerns over what she described as suspicious financial transactions.

She sought a court order in November 2024 for the outstanding amount to be paid immediately in a lump sum or under accelerated terms, but the application was dismissed by Choo in May 2025.

She then applied for an asset freeze last September, citing missed payments and her discovery that he planned to relocate to Dubai, had put his bungalow on the market and had secured access to most of the S$18.3 million released to him after refinancing the property, according to The Straits Times.

He subsequently withdrew the funds in two batches and made a transfer of S$18.2 million to his company, which he said was meant to repay a debt he owed to the firm. The amount, however, exceeded the alleged debt by S$2.2 million.

“This is an unusual and unexplained movement of funds suggesting an element of dishonesty in the defendant’s financial dealings,” Choo said in the court document.

The man’s lawyer claimed the bungalow had been listed for sale due to “an administrative error by the estate agent.”

But Choo said he found it difficult to believe the listing was by mistake.

He also pointed out that the businessman had consistently missed or delayed payments since May 2025.

“This is a troubling pattern of non-compliance followed by reactive payments when threatened with enforcement action. This is not the conduct of a person acting in good faith,” said the judge.

The judge ordered the man to place the funds with his solicitors within 30 days to cover the remaining monthly payments under the consent order. The money will be held and released to the ex-wife as scheduled.