CEO loses $468,000 court battle to recover money spent on ex-girlfriend

0
19

A Singaporean chief executive has failed in his attempt to recover about $468,000 he spent on his former girlfriend during their relationship, after a court ruled that the money was given as gifts rather than loans.

Chander Agarwal, the CEO of a logistics company, met former flight attendant Felicia Lee on a flight in 2019. The pair later began a romantic relationship in September 2022, which ended in December 2023 after Agarwal became suspicious that Lee was involved with another man.

In March 2024, Agarwal filed a lawsuit claiming that Lee had received a series of “interest-free loans” from him during their relationship and was therefore required to repay the money.

CEO loses court battle over money spent on ex-girlfriend

His claims included about S$206,000 in credit card expenses, S$129,000 spent on overseas trips, S$17,000 paid to a fengshui master for Lee’s apartment and S$20,000 towards her life insurance premiums.

Lee denied that the money was given as loans, arguing that the payments were simply “gifts made out of love and affection.”

Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled in Lee’s favour, noting that Agarwal had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support his claim that the money was borrowed.

The court particularly noted that there was no written acknowledgement from Lee confirming that the payments were loans or that she had agreed to repay them.

girlfriend,court

The judge also observed that Agarwal was “clearly a man of ample means who has expensive tastes” and had been “showering [Lee] with lavish gifts” even before their relationship became romantic.

Messages presented in court showed Lee repeatedly expressing surprise at Agarwal’s generosity and, at times, appearing hesitant to accept some of the gifts.

However, the judge found that Agarwal had repeatedly reassured Lee that he did not expect anything in return for the money and gifts he gave her.

girlfriend,court

Based on the evidence, the court concluded that the payments were gifts rather than loans, making Agarwal’s attempt to recover the $468,000 unsuccessful.

By: Prince Martey-Sogar

Author