He Takes Two-Faced Friend To Court

Source : The New Paper, October 24, 2007

# Borrows $136,000 from friend
# Even writes IOUs for loans
# Refuses to pay loan
# Accuses friend of being loanshark

HE lent his friend $136,000.

When he asked for the money back, his friend refused to pay.

Worse, when he took his friend to court, he found himself being labelled an illegal moneylender.

And Mr Eddy Sim received another slap when the other party, Mr Sng Tian Wan, denied they were friends.

But a district court did not believe Mr Sng's allegations against Mr Sim, and ordered him to return the money, with interest of about 5.3 per cent, from the date of filing of his writ.

The court was affirming an earlier decision by a deputy registrar. Mr Sim had said that he and Mr Sng, a 'long-time friend' of at least 15 years, were joint investors in a property deal.

Between April 2004 and January 2005, he lent Mr Sng a total of $136,000, interest-free, over various occasions.

At that time, in return for the cash cheques he received, Mr Sng wrote IOUs to Mr Sim, stating his own name, IC number and the amount.

After several failed attempts to get his money back, Mr Sim took Mr Sng to court in February this year.

In court, Mr Sng denied that Mr Sim was a friend.

He argued that the money was part of Mr Sim's illegal money-lending transactions, and accused him to be an agent for money-lending syndicates.

He claimed that Mr Sim could not have lent him the money as the latter had been discharged from bankruptcy only in 1999. He also claimed that he had repaid the loans fully.

JUDGE NOT CONVINCED

District Judge Ng Peng Hong, however, did not believe him.

He said: 'The defendant (Mr Sng) did not produce cheque butts or bank statements as evidence of such payments. The list of payments was also lacking in detail.'

He also said that Mr Sng did not provide evidence to support his allegation that Mr Sim was part of illegal money-lending syndicates.

Judge Ng noted that the two parties were also not total strangers.

'They knew each other for at least 15 years and were joint investors in the purchase of a property. I think if they were not friends, they would not have jointly invested in the purchase of the property.'

Judge Ng also noted that at the onset of the lawsuit, Mr Sng just denied everything and made no allegation that the loans were part of an illegal money-lending transaction.

It was only later on that the allegations came about, he said.

He pointed out that Mr Sim, though a former bankrupt, had the funds to lend Mr Sng as he had sold his property in April 2004.

Judge Ng added: 'It's also incredible to believe (Mr Sng's) allegation that he was a multi-millionaire when it is not disputed that he had borrowed money periodically from (MrSim).'

In dismissing Mr Sng's appeal, he ordered that Mr Sng pay back $136,000 with 5.3 per cent interest calculated from the date the writ was filed, to the date of the judgment, as well as costs.

Mr Sim, said to be suffering from serious liver problems, could not be reached for an interview through his lawyer, Mr Ramayah Vangatharaman.