Chitchat Sinkie woman gets fired and sued after helping boss with $120k!

[Scrooball (clone)]

When an employee gets fired and sued after helping boss with $120k​

An employee handed over $120,000 to ease her company's cash flow problem but her boss refused to pay her back ST ILLUSTRATION: CEL GULAPA
Tan Ooi Boon
UPDATED MAR 09, 2025, 01:09 PM


SINGAPORE - Imagine facing the double whammy of not being able to recover $120,000 owed to you and yet being sued for defamation when you set a debt collector to chase for payment.

That was what happened to an employee here when she made the mistake of trusting her boss, who used to mentor and groom her as part of the succession planning for his company.

The woman, who was a finance manager of the company that offered administrative-related services, had been mentored by the boss over a number ofyears as part of his succession planning.

This built up her levels of trust for the man to a point where she was keen to help out when he told her that the firm was facing cash-flow problems. After all, the man was like “a father” to her, she noted, and she was assured that the money would be repaid as soon as the situation improved.

The woman helped to pay the salaries of her colleagues that totalled $18,000, by transferring the money from her bank account. She did this even though she was not paid her monthly salary of $2,000.

This meant she was owed $20,000 by helping her boss pay the salaries.

When the company ran into further trouble and was not able to pay the rent, she transferred $100,000 to the corporate account to keep the business afloat.


On both occasions, she was banking on the trust she had in the boss, who promised that she would get her money back within weeks.

But that promise turned out to be an empty one and she began to press him for her money.

It was then that she saw the ugly side of the man she once respected: He told her that he never took her money and that the cash she had handed over was a loan to the company.

This meant that if the firm became insolvent, her debt would not be repaid.

The woman never gave up in pestering the boss to return $120,000 to the point where she was sacked for “insubordination and conflict of interest”.

Since all bets were off and the relationship had soured to the point of no return, she engaged debt collectors.

The licensed collectors were diligent in their work and tried to look for the boss six times in order to serve “a red letter” containing the demand for repayment of the debt.

On the first occasion, they went to his office but he was not in and so the letter was handed to an employee. The letter had his name written in a box labelled “Debtor’s Name”, with the following message: “We are looking for the Above Person, demanding an amount of SGD120,000.”

The collectors also visited his home three times but failed to find him. On the last visit, they also handed a similar red letter to the boss’ domestic helper.

They then went to the workplace of his wife and daughter but did not ask to see them. They loitered outside the premises waiting for him but in the end, they left after slipping a red letter under the office door.

Their last visit was to the man’s home, where they again passed the letter to the domestic helper as he was not there.

Claim for debt and defamation​

The boss took offence at the red letters, claiming they painted him as a businessman who refused or was unable to pay his debts. This led him to filing a defamation suit against the woman and her debt collectors.

In return, the woman filed her own claim against him for the return of her $120,000.

She lost her case at the district court because she failed to prove that she had made a personal loan to her boss and not to the company. This was because in both instances, the funds were not given to him.

As a result of this finding, she also lost in the defamation suit because she was not justified in chasing the boss for the debt when he did not personally owe her money.

So she was ordered to compensate the man $10,000 for the hurt to his reputation.

When she appealed to the High Court, Justice Pang Khang Chau upheld the decision relating to the loan because there was no evidence to support the claim that the boss had borrowed the money personally from the woman.

But the judge had a different view relating to the debt collection saga because as the owner of his company, the boss had control over whether the company would repay or withhold repayment of the loans.

He noted that being the person in charge, the boss had allowed his company to incur the loans and had subsequently failed to direct it to repay the debts despite repeated requests from the woman.

The judge found that these facts alone would have destroyed this particular area of his reputation such that “he could not be said to have any reputation... to be worthy of legal protection”.

So the judge saw no reason to award substantial damages to him and slashed the earlier award of $10,000 to just a nominal $1.

The case provides a good lesson on why you should never part with any money without a good record of the transaction.

No proof of the personal loan

If you are handing over a large sum without documenting the transaction, you are likely to face an uphill task in recovering it in a dispute.

Without any proof of the purpose of the transfer, the recipient can come up with a host of reasons to deny repayment, such as claiming the transfer was meant to pay up your debt or that it was meant as a payment for services rendered in the past.

There have been quite a number of cases here on how the claimants failed to recover their loans simply because they did not put the transactions in writing.

This case was no different because the woman made the transfers based on her trust in the boss and the phone messages they exchanged. But none of these messages showed that the boss had asked for a personal loan from her.

For instance, the woman made direct transfers of $18,000 from her own account to the bank accounts of her colleagues and these loan transactions were not even reflected in the company’s account, let alone the boss’ personal account.

The transfer of $100,000 to the company for paying rent was recorded in the corporate account but the woman failed to prove that this sum was a loan to the boss who then used it as funds to pay rent.

Instead, the entry seemed to indicate that she had offered the loan directly to the company, without the boss being responsible for the debt personally. After all, she told two colleagues about the transfer and how she was trying to recover the sum from the company.

As all the transactions did not involve the boss directly, the court found that the woman could not prove that she had given a personal loan to him and not the company.

So when it comes to transactions involving large sums of money, it is always better to put the terms in writing so that you do not have to face the risk of dealing with broken promises.

​

 

[Pinkieslut]

This SPG can easily pay so much money. Probably mistress of her boss. Why cannot state names?

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Interesting case. Not sure why the boss's name was concealed.

https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_167

Tang Swea Phing

v

Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) and another appeal
[2024] SGHC 167
General Division of the High Court — District Court Appeals Nos 22 and 23 of 2022
Pang Khang Chau J
31 October, 25 November 2022, 24 July 2023, 4, 31 January, 1 February 2024
29 June 2024
Pang Khang Chau J:
Introduction
1 District Court Appeal No 22 of 2022 (“DCA 22”) and District Court Appeal No 23 of 2022 (“DCA 23”) are two cross appeals against the judgment rendered by the learned district judge (the “DJ”) in District Court Suit No 1387 of 2019 (“DC 1387”). The appellant in DCA 22, Ms Tang Swea Phing (“Ms Tang”), was the first defendant in DC 1387. The appellant in DCA 23, Mr Chan Tam Hoi @ Paul Chan (“Mr Chan”), was the plaintiff in DC 1387.
2 In DC 1387, Mr Chan sued Ms Tang and SDCS Holdings Pte Ltd (“SDCS”) for defamation. He alleged that Ms Tang had engaged SDCS to recover a sum of $120,000 from him, and that SDCS had defamed him in the course of doing so. He sought damages to be assessed and a permanent injunction to restrain Ms Tang and SDCS from further defaming him.
3 Ms Tang and SDCS both accepted that SDCS had been engaged by Ms Tang to recover an alleged debt of $120,000 from Mr Chan (“Alleged Debt”), but they disputed that Mr Chan was defamed. They also asserted that the defence of justification applied because Mr Chan did in fact owe $120,000 to Ms Tang. On this basis, Ms Tang also made a counterclaim for $120,000 against Mr Chan.
4 The DJ found in favour of Mr Chan in the defamation claim and awarded damages at $10,000 to him. The DJ also dismissed Ms Tang’s counterclaim. (See the DJ’s judgment at Chan Tam Hoi @ Paul Chan v Tang Swea Phing and another [2022] SGDC 95 (“the Judgment”).) In DCA 22, Ms Tang appealed against the whole of the DJ’s decision. In DCA 23, Mr Chan appealed against the DJ’s decision on quantum of damages. I upheld the DJ’s findings on liability for defamation and on the dismissal of the counterclaim but substituted the DJ’s award of substantial damages for defamation with nominal damages of $1. Consequently, DCA 22 was allowed in part and dismissed in part, while DCA 23 was dismissed in its entirety.
5 Ms Tang has appealed against my decision in DCA 22.
Facts
The parties
6 Up until her employment was terminated in August 2017, Ms Tang was the finance manager of the following two related companies:
(a)  NSC Capital Pte Ltd (“NSC”), a company incorporated in Singapore and in the business of offering business service centres, management consultancy services and business administration services; and
(b) Menon Network Pte Ltd (“Menon Network”), a company incorporated in Singapore and in the business of offering training and conference rooms for rent.
7 At all material times, Mr Chan was the chief executive officer and majority shareholder of NSC. At the time the Alleged Debts were incurred in 2016, Mr Chan was one of three directors of NSC. By the time Ms Tang sought to recover the Alleged Debts through the services of SDCS in 2019, Mr Chan had become the sole director of NSC. At all material times, Mr Chan was the sole director and sole shareholder of Menon Network. NSC and Menon Network (collectively, the “Companies”) shared the same office premises.
8 SDCS is a company incorporated in Singapore and is in the business of providing debt recovery services. SDCS was engaged on 11 March 2019 by Ms Tang to recover the Alleged Debt from Mr Chan. SDCS was the second defendant in DC 1387 and the second respondent in DCA 23. SDCS did not file its own appeal against the DJ’s decision and did not participate in DCA 22 and DCA 23.
Background to the dispute
9 Ms Tang and Mr Chan originally shared a good working relationship. Mr Chan stated in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) that, over the years, he had entrusted Ms Tang to oversee the day-to-day business of NSC in its entirety, with the aim of grooming Ms Tang to “take over NSC”. Ms Tang likewise stated in cross-examination that she had treated Mr Chan like her father. Ms Tang’s husband, who operated his own computer business, also had business dealings with the Companies.
10 Against this backdrop, Ms Tang extended several loans which formed the basis of the Alleged Debt.
The October 2016 loan
11 The first loan was extended by Ms Tang in or around October 2016 (the “October 2016 loan”). At that time, the Companies were facing cash flow issues and had difficulty paying the salaries of their employees. This led to Ms Tang transferring a total of S$18,050 to the respective bank accounts of eight of the Companies’ employees on or around 28 October 2016. In addition, Ms Tang was owed $2,000 which represented her own October 2016 salary which had not been paid.
12 The October 2016 loan thus amounted to $20,050, although Ms Tang only claimed $20,000 in respect of the October 2016 loan in her counterclaim against Mr Chan. According to Ms Tang, she extended the October 2016 loan because Mr Chan had approached her for help in paying the outstanding salaries and promised to repay the amount within two weeks. Mr Chan’s position was that Ms Tang extended the October 2016 loan without any request on his part. More importantly, Mr Chan took the position that the October 2016 loan was extended by Ms Tang to the Companies and not to Mr Chan personally.
The November 2016 loan
13 The second loan was extended by Ms Tang on or around 3 November 2016 (the “November 2016 loan”). According to Ms Tang, Mr Chan had requested her help in paying for the Companies’ office rent and promised to repay her within one week. She initially told him that she did not have that much money but eventually transferred a sum of $100,000 to NSC’s bank account.
14 Mr Chan’s position on the November 2016 loan was, once again, that it was extended to the Companies and not to Mr Chan personally.
The attempts to recover the Alleged Debt
15 Prior to the termination of her employment with the Companies in August 2017, Ms Tang had approached Mr Chan on several occasions for the repayment of the Alleged Debt. Ms Tang suspected this could be the reason behind Mr Chan’s eventual decision to terminate her employment with the Companies on grounds of insubordination and conflict of interest.
16 On 11 March 2019, Ms Tang engaged SDCS’s services to recover the Alleged Debt from Mr Chan. SDCS made six recovery attempts. The first attempt was made on 11 March 2019, whereby a letter of demand addressed to Mr Chan was sent by SDCS to the Companies’ address (“First Attempt”). The second attempt was made on 12 March 2019, whereby representatives from SDCS attended at the Companies’ premises to recover the Alleged Debt (“Second Attempt”). The SDCS representatives were met by an employee of Menon Network, Ms Balvinda Kaur (“Ms Kaur”), who informed them that Mr Chan had left for the day and was not in the office (even though she knew at the time that Mr Chan was still in the office). The SDCS representatives then handed Ms Kaur a second letter of demand (referred to in the Judgment as the “first red letter”) before departing. In this first red letter, Mr Chan’s name was written in a box labelled “Debtor Name”, below which the follow statements appeared:
Dear Sir/Madam, we are looking for the Above Person, demanding an amount of SGD120,000.
…
This is to notify you that payment is past due from the day we sent our “Letter of Demand” to your Premises to inform you of the outstanding which you have owed our Client. Today we have visited you at (6.30).
If you have not settled, please contact our office at the above hotline as soon as possible to make the overdue payment to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and inconvenience. If you have settled the above matter, kindly send us a screenshot of the receipt.
…
17 This was followed by two further attempts at Mr Chan’s home address on 14 March 2019 (“Third Attempt”) and on 21 March 2019 (“Fourth Attempt”). On both occasions, Mr Chan was not at home. The Third Attempt ended with the SDCS representatives leaving a letter of demand with Mr Chan’s domestic helper (“the second red letter”) which was worded identically to the first red letter. At the Fourth Attempt, the SDCS representative only made oral demands and did not leave a letter of demand.

18 On 22 March 2019, Mr Chan’s solicitors sent a letter each to SDCS and Ms Tang, demanding that they cease and desist from the “making and/or causing of unfounded harassment and/or allegations against our client and/or his family members and/or the Company [ie, NSC] and its related companies” (the “D&N Letters”). Despite the D&N Letters, a fifth recovery attempt was made on 28 March 2019 at the office of Her Velvet Vase Pte Ltd (“HVV”) where Mr Chan’s wife and daughter worked (“Fifth Attempt”). During this attempt, the SDCS representatives did not directly approach the occupants of the HVV premises but merely loitered outside hoping to catch sight of Mr Chan. After some time, they slipped a letter of demand (“the third red letter”) under the door of the HVV premises and left. The relevant parts of the third red letter read:

Dear Sir/Madam, we went down to your premises to demand an amount of SGD120k.
DEBTOR NAME: Paul Chan
PREMISES WE WENT TODAY: [Blank]
This is to notify you that payment is past due from the day we sent out “Letter of Demand” to your Premises to inform you of the outstanding which you have owed our Client. Today we visited You at (______________).
If you have not settled, please contact our office at +65 [NUMBER] as soon as possible to make the overdue payment to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and inconvenience. If you have settled the above matter, kindly send us a screenshot of the receipt.
…
19 A final attempt was made at Mr Chan’s home address on 1 April 2019 (“Sixth Attempt”). Mr Chan was again not at home, and the SDCS representatives departed after leaving a letter of demand (“the fourth red letter”) with Mr Chan’s domestic helper. The contents of the fourth red letter were identical to those of the third red letter.

 

[sbfuncle]

That's the result of wanting to suck boss cock.
Some kana fired instead.
Like gansiokbin, also finance mgr.

 

[k1976]

When an employee gets fired and sued after helping boss with $120k​

An employee handed over $120,000 to ease her company's cash flow problem but her boss refused to pay her back ST ILLUSTRATION: CEL GULAPA
Tan Ooi Boon
UPDATED MAR 09, 2025, 01:09 PM


SINGAPORE - Imagine facing the double whammy of not being able to recover $120,000 owed to you and yet being sued for defamation when you set a debt collector to chase for payment.

That was what happened to an employee here when she made the mistake of trusting her boss, who used to mentor and groom her as part of the succession planning for his company.

The woman, who was a finance manager of the company that offered administrative-related services, had been mentored by the boss over a number ofyears as part of his succession planning.

This built up her levels of trust for the man to a point where she was keen to help out when he told her that the firm was facing cash-flow problems. After all, the man was like “a father” to her, she noted, and she was assured that the money would be repaid as soon as the situation improved.

The woman helped to pay the salaries of her colleagues that totalled $18,000, by transferring the money from her bank account. She did this even though she was not paid her monthly salary of $2,000.

This meant she was owed $20,000 by helping her boss pay the salaries.

When the company ran into further trouble and was not able to pay the rent, she transferred $100,000 to the corporate account to keep the business afloat.


On both occasions, she was banking on the trust she had in the boss, who promised that she would get her money back within weeks.

But that promise turned out to be an empty one and she began to press him for her money.

It was then that she saw the ugly side of the man she once respected: He told her that he never took her money and that the cash she had handed over was a loan to the company.

This meant that if the firm became insolvent, her debt would not be repaid.

The woman never gave up in pestering the boss to return $120,000 to the point where she was sacked for “insubordination and conflict of interest”.

Since all bets were off and the relationship had soured to the point of no return, she engaged debt collectors.

The licensed collectors were diligent in their work and tried to look for the boss six times in order to serve “a red letter” containing the demand for repayment of the debt.

On the first occasion, they went to his office but he was not in and so the letter was handed to an employee. The letter had his name written in a box labelled “Debtor’s Name”, with the following message: “We are looking for the Above Person, demanding an amount of SGD120,000.”

The collectors also visited his home three times but failed to find him. On the last visit, they also handed a similar red letter to the boss’ domestic helper.

They then went to the workplace of his wife and daughter but did not ask to see them. They loitered outside the premises waiting for him but in the end, they left after slipping a red letter under the office door.

Their last visit was to the man’s home, where they again passed the letter to the domestic helper as he was not there.

Claim for debt and defamation​

The boss took offence at the red letters, claiming they painted him as a businessman who refused or was unable to pay his debts. This led him to filing a defamation suit against the woman and her debt collectors.

In return, the woman filed her own claim against him for the return of her $120,000.

She lost her case at the district court because she failed to prove that she had made a personal loan to her boss and not to the company. This was because in both instances, the funds were not given to him.

As a result of this finding, she also lost in the defamation suit because she was not justified in chasing the boss for the debt when he did not personally owe her money.

So she was ordered to compensate the man $10,000 for the hurt to his reputation.

When she appealed to the High Court, Justice Pang Khang Chau upheld the decision relating to the loan because there was no evidence to support the claim that the boss had borrowed the money personally from the woman.

But the judge had a different view relating to the debt collection saga because as the owner of his company, the boss had control over whether the company would repay or withhold repayment of the loans.

He noted that being the person in charge, the boss had allowed his company to incur the loans and had subsequently failed to direct it to repay the debts despite repeated requests from the woman.

The judge found that these facts alone would have destroyed this particular area of his reputation such that “he could not be said to have any reputation... to be worthy of legal protection”.

So the judge saw no reason to award substantial damages to him and slashed the earlier award of $10,000 to just a nominal $1.

The case provides a good lesson on why you should never part with any money without a good record of the transaction.

No proof of the personal loan

If you are handing over a large sum without documenting the transaction, you are likely to face an uphill task in recovering it in a dispute.

Without any proof of the purpose of the transfer, the recipient can come up with a host of reasons to deny repayment, such as claiming the transfer was meant to pay up your debt or that it was meant as a payment for services rendered in the past.

There have been quite a number of cases here on how the claimants failed to recover their loans simply because they did not put the transactions in writing.

This case was no different because the woman made the transfers based on her trust in the boss and the phone messages they exchanged. But none of these messages showed that the boss had asked for a personal loan from her.

For instance, the woman made direct transfers of $18,000 from her own account to the bank accounts of her colleagues and these loan transactions were not even reflected in the company’s account, let alone the boss’ personal account.

The transfer of $100,000 to the company for paying rent was recorded in the corporate account but the woman failed to prove that this sum was a loan to the boss who then used it as funds to pay rent.

Instead, the entry seemed to indicate that she had offered the loan directly to the company, without the boss being responsible for the debt personally. After all, she told two colleagues about the transfer and how she was trying to recover the sum from the company.

As all the transactions did not involve the boss directly, the court found that the woman could not prove that she had given a personal loan to him and not the company.

So when it comes to transactions involving large sums of money, it is always better to put the terms in writing so that you do not have to face the risk of dealing with broken promises.

​

 

[syed putra]

That's the result of wanting to suck boss cock.
Some kana fired instead.
Like gansiokbin, also finance mgr.

One company i know the boss bonk all the executives including the married ones.

 

[syed putra]

One company i know the boss bonk all the executives including the married ones.

During bad times they kept on working and even loaned him money. But were repaid once, cash flow resumes.

 

[eatshitndie]

sg has 2 types of gcb: good crass bungalow and gong chee bye.

 

[A Singaporean]

What to do when u have itchy CB.

 

[batman1]

There are many unscrupulous and nasty employers/bosses jn Singspore.

 

[Balls2U]

The judge should do a deed poll to change his name. Pang Khang Chau? What were his parents thinking when they gave him such a fuck up name? "Off work stink"!

 

[cocobobo]

I thought the woman was paid 10k and above, a senior staff ... but she only paid 2k, likely just lowly admin worker, while boss promised rainbows and dragons.

It's just a con job by the boss

 

[eatshitndie]

The judge should do a deed poll to change his name. Pang Khang Chau? What were his parents thinking when they gave him such a fuck up name? "Off work stink"!

it was meant to be pang (sai) kang chau. of course pang sai kang is chau.

 

[sbfuncle]

Just wondering why there was no proves of her transferring so much money to boss?
Or is it another delulu slut?
Else unlikely the judge will give this kind of sentencing. After losing $120k still need to compensate $10k to boss.

 

[kulgai]

$2k a month? what kind of finance manager is that

 

[k1976]

One company i know the boss bonk all the executives including the married ones.

m&d or Cina company?

 

[k1976]

One company i know the boss bonk all the executives including the married ones.

Boss must be Jone Lone level

 

[syed putra]

m&d or Cina company?

Cina laa. Malay how to do business.

 

[k1976]

Cina laa. Malay how to do business.

Wow… Malay can open ice cream company mah

 

[WangChuk]

she is a joker siah .... her title is finance manager but salary only $2k so little that even a worker in Kao Yong Tou Foo working 5day of 10hr shift with salary of $2.6k is much much higher than her .... her boss dont scam her then scam who?