Crooked Lawyer Made Brothers' Lives A Mess

Source : The New Paper, October 09, 2007

OWNERS DUPED, BANK ALSO DUPED
Judge rules there was nothing to show that bank was at fault for approving loan

THEIR former lawyer forged their signatures and made herself a co-owner of their $1 million property in Senang Crescent.

Using forged documents, she then got a bank to lend her $700,000 by mortgaging the property.

Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu then disappeared with the money.

As if that was not enough, the court recently ruled that Maybank has the right to sell the property and get the money owed to it.















The Senang Crescent property at the centre of a dispute between Maybank and the three Sim brothers. It's worth $1million. -- Picture: KELVIN CHNG

The three brothers have appealed against the ruling.

One brother, Mr Sim Chiang Lee, a businessman in his 50s, said: 'We're in this mess because of that crooked lawyer.

'But she has fled and there's nothing we can do.'

Another brother, Mr Sim Sien Tiong, who is in his 50s, told The New Paper: 'The lawyer has run away so she won't have to face the music.

'What's important now is to see if there's any way to stop the bank from selling the property.'

If they don't pay up more than $750,000 owed (including interest), they risk having the property auctioned off by the bank.

- Photo illustration

Mr Chiang Lee said: 'The worst thing was that the property had been 'sold' to that lawyer and I didn't know about it until March 2004.

'We confronted the lawyer, but she merely apologised without explaining, so we went to the police.

'My brothers and I wrote to Maybank to state that we own the property and we don't recognise the mortgage, which was taken out behind our backs.'

They told The New Paper that their main beef is that they will not get the full profit if Maybank sells the property, as the bank will first deduct the amount owed to it.

SYMPATHY

The case even elicited sympathy from the High Court judge who heard the matter.

In his written judgment late last month, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said: 'This is yet another case where a fraud is committed, the prime suspect flees, and the victims are left to dispute over who is to bear the loss.'

In this case, he noted that although the brothers were duped by their lawyer, there was nothing to show that the bank was at fault for approving the loan, which was an ordinary banking transaction.

Therefore he upheld the mortgage as valid.

The ruling means that in the event of a sale, the owners - brothers Sim Sien Tiong, Sim Ah Ban and Sim Chiang Lee - will get only what is left after the loan amount has been deducted.

The brothers' woes began in March 2004, when the Singapore Land Authority informed Mr Sim Chiang Lee that a Maybank mortgage had been taken on the property, a tenanted warehouse at 23, Senang Crescent.

The brothers suspected Sivakolunthu of fraud and made a police report.

Investigations showed that she had forged her clients' signatures to transfer the property to herself.

She had earlier acted for the three brothers in another case.

CONFRONTED LAWYER

Little did they expect that the lawyer would later use the documents to get herself that bank loan.

In addition, she used more than $13,000, supposedly stamp fees for the transfer of the properties in the agreement, to pay for expenses unrelated to the brothers.

After the brothers found out about the loan, they confronted the lawyer who supposedly confessed to the deed and apologised for her action.

The brothers later made a police report but before she could be taken to task, she absconded.

In her absence, the Law Society moved to have her struck off the rolls on 29 Mar last year.

In 2005, Maybank began legal proceedings against Sivakolunthu and the brothers - it wanted the High Court to declare the mortgage valid and that it is entitled to any profits from the property.

In their defence, the brothers claimed they too, were victims of Sivakolunthu's fraud and that they had no knowledge of the mortgage.

Their lawyer, Mr Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership, argued that the mortgage should be declared invalid as it was obtained through fraud, wilful blindness and voluntary ignorance.

However, Maybank, represented by Mr Ng Yeow Khoon of Shook Lin & Bok, argued that the mortgage had been obtained fairly.

The bank had disbursed the money to Sivakolunthu in the belief that the mortgage was honest.




















Justice Kan agreed that the brothers had not proven their case, and awarded judgment to Maybank.

He referred to an earlier precedent on a banking fraud case that was handed down by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong last year.

Then, CJ Chan noted that in ordinary banking transactions, there is no reason for the bank to act dishonestly or to seek to defraud the customer of his property that has been put up as security.

Unless it can be shown that bank's own employees or agents have acted fraudulently or dishonestly against the bank's customers, he ruled that 'court actions against lending banks on the ground of fraud have little chance of success'.

The Sim siblings' case is expected to be heard in the Court of Appeal next January.