Serious SPG claimed she owns Bukit Timah Condo paid by ex Boyfriend

[Pinkieslut]

Judge rejects woman’s claim that she owns 99% of Bukit Timah condo mostly paid for by ex-boyfriend​

SINGAPORE – A couple who bought a Bukit Timah condominium unit and registered their ownership in the ratio of 99:1 broke up less than a year later, and ended up tussling in court over the property.

Mr Jake Ngor, 35 – who held the 1 per cent share despite contributing most of the $1.865 million purchase price of the Hillcrest Arcadia unit – sued Ms Millie Wong, 38, who insisted that she owned 99 per cent of the property.

Mr Ngor said the property was registered in the 99:1 ratio mainly to quell Ms Wong’s fear and insecurity that he may be unfaithful to her, as well as to avoid paying additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) if they were to buy a second property.

In a written judgment on June 30, the High Court rejected Ms Wong’s assertion that she owned 99 per cent of the property.

Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin said Mr Ngor did not intend to “immediately and unconditionally” benefit Ms Wong with his financial contributions towards the property.

Justice Lee found that Mr Ngor had intended to benefit Ms Wong only if he cheated on her.

However, there was no evidence or even any suggestion that Mr Ngor had been unfaithful to Ms Wong.

Top stories​

Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
World

US Senate approves divisive Trump spending Bill​

Singapore

A second chance to excel: 3,800 private candidates taking O- and A-level exams in 2025​

Multimedia

Right on track: Meet the new JB-Singapore RTS Link train​

Opinion

US strikes on Iran: The impact ripples on, from Baghdad to Beijing​

Singapore

‘He fought till the end’: Man who survived acid attack as a baby dies of cancer at 26​

Asia

Thai PM’s suspension could spell end of Shinawatra clan’s era of political dominance​

Life

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs jury asks to review Casandra Ventura’s testimony​

It necessarily followed then that there was no common intention for her to own 99 per cent of the property, said the judge.

After considering each owner’s financial contributions, he found that Mr Ngor owns a 54.22 per cent beneficial interest in the property.

A beneficial interest refers to the right to benefit from an asset, even if another person is the registered owner.

In Singapore, when there is evidence that a person contributed to the purchase of a property, the law presumes that the contributor holds a proportionate beneficial interest in the property, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

In other words, the registered owner is holding the property, or a part of it, on trust for the contributor.

Justice Lee also considered whether Mr Ngor’s claim should be denied on grounds of illegality.

The judge noted that this case is the first of its kind in dealing with the novel question of whether someone who owns 1 per cent of a property in a 99:1 arrangement should be blocked from asserting a case on grounds of a trust because the deal would have been illegal.

The pair admitted that they planned for Mr Ngor to transfer and pay taxes on his 1 per cent share to Ms Wong when they decide to buy a second property.

Justice Lee said there was no nefarious intention or knowledge that this would be an unlawful act. Moreover, the plan was never carried out.

The judge made it clear that this strategy should not be confused with the “99-to-1” arrangements, where buyers who stagger a single transaction into multiple transactions to evade ABSD have been penalised by the taxman.

Mr Ngor, a wealth manager, and Ms Wong, a financial consultant, began a romantic relationship shortly after they met in mid-2018.

Early on in their relationship, they talked about their future and plans to purchase properties.

In December 2019, they exercised an option to purchase the Hillcrest Arcadia unit.

The purchase was completed in March 2020, and the property was rented out throughout the couple’s relationship.

They serviced the monthly mortgage with their Central Provident Fund monies and the rental proceeds.

Cracks soon developed in their relationship, largely fuelled by Ms Wong’s insecurity, which led to the couple’s separation in November that year, said Mr Ngor.

Despite their break-up, the pair continued to talk amicably about matters relating to the property.

In 2022, they discussed the sale of the property. However, in December 2022 and January 2023, she started ignoring his messages.

On Jan 18, 2023, Ms Wong sent him a long message, asserting that she owned the entirety of her 99 per cent legal share in the property.

He filed the lawsuit in July 2023, seeking a beneficial interest in the property proportionate to his financial contributions.

According to the judgment, Mr Ngor, who was represented by Mr Tito Isaac, argued that he and Ms Wong “did not understand the concept of beneficial ownership and simply decided to co-own the property in layman’s terms without any discussion on their actual beneficial interests”.

He contended that he intended to let Ms Wong have 99 per cent of the property only in two situations: If he cheats on her, or if they decide to buy another property.

Mr Ngor said that outside these two scenarios, it made no financial sense for him, as a young man starting out in his career, to make an outright gift of such an expensive property. He argued that Ms Wong holds the property on trust for him in proportion to his financial contributions.

Ms Wong, who was represented by lawyer Terence Tan, contended that there was no trust arising in Mr Ngor’s favour.

She said she was extremely insecure and needed assurance from Mr Ngor of his commitment to the relationship, and he showed his sincerity by agreeing to register her as a 99 per cent owner of the property.

Ms Wong argued that they did not distinguish between legal and beneficial ownership, and treated her registered 99 per cent interest as equivalent to her actual ownership of the property.

Hillcrest Arcadia was put up for collective sale for $920 million in April 2025. The tender closed on May 22 with no bids, and the potential sale has moved into private treaty talks.

 

[eatshitndie]

this is why sinkie charbor has a difficult time finding a partner. after 69 weeks she becums unbearable and easily triggered. better to remain single and die alone at home, allowing neighbors to appreciate the essense of her smell at death.

 

[WangChuk]

Appeal high cork lah ... bring in AWARE and charbor charter .... invest and pay the Bahyee Singh to sue ... high chance can huat big big after lawyer fees one

 

[Sustanon]

a classic gold digger..... good thing didn't merry this gold digger or else that excavating hulldozer is org until you bo chun one ah.....

 

[Hightech88]

Everything else in relationship can play but better don't mess with property ownership names LOL.

Feelings change, people change and love changes with time. In this case, once things go awry, this farking SPG will obviously use every means to try to get back at him.

Luckily the judge serve the right justice to base it on property purchase value contribution else the guy sure GG.

 

[bigozt]

the bitch is a-bitching about condom..er condo

 

[syed putra]

The judge did not the into consideration the free bonks Mr Ngor had, the housekeeping and cooking and washing and where the couple live during their relationship.

 

[50000]

So is the 99%:1% arrangement legal or not legal?

 

[syed putra]

So is the 99%:1% arrangement legal or not legal?

Looks like it is irrelevant. This will open up many other issues in other cases.

 

[syed putra]

The judge did not the into consideration the free bonks Mr Ngor had, the housekeeping and cooking and washing and where the couple live during their relationship.

Plus the judge did not consider depreciation, wear and tear of Ms Wong.

 

[tobelightlight]

Another good example of why living the women-free life is the way to go.

 

[NanoSpeed]

Judge rejects woman’s claim that she owns 99% of Bukit Timah condo mostly paid for by ex-boyfriend​

SINGAPORE – A couple who bought a Bukit Timah condominium unit and registered their ownership in the ratio of 99:1 broke up less than a year later, and ended up tussling in court over the property.

Mr Jake Ngor, 35 – who held the 1 per cent share despite contributing most of the $1.865 million purchase price of the Hillcrest Arcadia unit – sued Ms Millie Wong, 38, who insisted that she owned 99 per cent of the property.

Mr Ngor said the property was registered in the 99:1 ratio mainly to quell Ms Wong’s fear and insecurity that he may be unfaithful to her, as well as to avoid paying additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) if they were to buy a second property.

In a written judgment on June 30, the High Court rejected Ms Wong’s assertion that she owned 99 per cent of the property.

Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin said Mr Ngor did not intend to “immediately and unconditionally” benefit Ms Wong with his financial contributions towards the property.

Justice Lee found that Mr Ngor had intended to benefit Ms Wong only if he cheated on her.

However, there was no evidence or even any suggestion that Mr Ngor had been unfaithful to Ms Wong.

Top stories​

Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
World

US Senate approves divisive Trump spending Bill​

Singapore

A second chance to excel: 3,800 private candidates taking O- and A-level exams in 2025​

Multimedia

Right on track: Meet the new JB-Singapore RTS Link train​

Opinion

US strikes on Iran: The impact ripples on, from Baghdad to Beijing​

Singapore

‘He fought till the end’: Man who survived acid attack as a baby dies of cancer at 26​

Asia

Thai PM’s suspension could spell end of Shinawatra clan’s era of political dominance​

Life

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs jury asks to review Casandra Ventura’s testimony​

It necessarily followed then that there was no common intention for her to own 99 per cent of the property, said the judge.

After considering each owner’s financial contributions, he found that Mr Ngor owns a 54.22 per cent beneficial interest in the property.

A beneficial interest refers to the right to benefit from an asset, even if another person is the registered owner.

In Singapore, when there is evidence that a person contributed to the purchase of a property, the law presumes that the contributor holds a proportionate beneficial interest in the property, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

In other words, the registered owner is holding the property, or a part of it, on trust for the contributor.

Justice Lee also considered whether Mr Ngor’s claim should be denied on grounds of illegality.

The judge noted that this case is the first of its kind in dealing with the novel question of whether someone who owns 1 per cent of a property in a 99:1 arrangement should be blocked from asserting a case on grounds of a trust because the deal would have been illegal.

The pair admitted that they planned for Mr Ngor to transfer and pay taxes on his 1 per cent share to Ms Wong when they decide to buy a second property.

Justice Lee said there was no nefarious intention or knowledge that this would be an unlawful act. Moreover, the plan was never carried out.

The judge made it clear that this strategy should not be confused with the “99-to-1” arrangements, where buyers who stagger a single transaction into multiple transactions to evade ABSD have been penalised by the taxman.

Mr Ngor, a wealth manager, and Ms Wong, a financial consultant, began a romantic relationship shortly after they met in mid-2018.

Early on in their relationship, they talked about their future and plans to purchase properties.

In December 2019, they exercised an option to purchase the Hillcrest Arcadia unit.

The purchase was completed in March 2020, and the property was rented out throughout the couple’s relationship.

They serviced the monthly mortgage with their Central Provident Fund monies and the rental proceeds.

Cracks soon developed in their relationship, largely fuelled by Ms Wong’s insecurity, which led to the couple’s separation in November that year, said Mr Ngor.

Despite their break-up, the pair continued to talk amicably about matters relating to the property.

In 2022, they discussed the sale of the property. However, in December 2022 and January 2023, she started ignoring his messages.

On Jan 18, 2023, Ms Wong sent him a long message, asserting that she owned the entirety of her 99 per cent legal share in the property.

He filed the lawsuit in July 2023, seeking a beneficial interest in the property proportionate to his financial contributions.

According to the judgment, Mr Ngor, who was represented by Mr Tito Isaac, argued that he and Ms Wong “did not understand the concept of beneficial ownership and simply decided to co-own the property in layman’s terms without any discussion on their actual beneficial interests”.

He contended that he intended to let Ms Wong have 99 per cent of the property only in two situations: If he cheats on her, or if they decide to buy another property.

Mr Ngor said that outside these two scenarios, it made no financial sense for him, as a young man starting out in his career, to make an outright gift of such an expensive property. He argued that Ms Wong holds the property on trust for him in proportion to his financial contributions.

Ms Wong, who was represented by lawyer Terence Tan, contended that there was no trust arising in Mr Ngor’s favour.

She said she was extremely insecure and needed assurance from Mr Ngor of his commitment to the relationship, and he showed his sincerity by agreeing to register her as a 99 per cent owner of the property.

Ms Wong argued that they did not distinguish between legal and beneficial ownership, and treated her registered 99 per cent interest as equivalent to her actual ownership of the property.

Hillcrest Arcadia was put up for collective sale for $920 million in April 2025. The tender closed on May 22 with no bids, and the potential sale has moved into private treaty talks.

This report is full of potholes. I wonder how many can fully comprehend what the journalist is trying to say.

Does Mr Clear Mind @sbfuncle understand the article ? Can explain ?

The journalist is Selina Lum.

 

[sbfuncle]

This report is full of potholes. I wonder how many can fully comprehend what the journalist is trying to say.

Does Mr Clear Mind @sbfuncle understand the article ? Can explain ?

The journalist is Selina Lum.

When i apply my clear state of mind analysis, I came out with these conclusions.

1. Ms wong is a greedy chicken, Pok Pok Pok.

2. Mr Ngor is a Chee hong ter nao, and put himself into this situation now.

3. The judge is suka yee gong judge .

4. The journalist just write whatever she knows without considering was it an understandable contents.

We should look at the very first level for the cause of this issue

A couple who bought a Bukit Timah condominium unit and registered their ownership in the ratio of 99:1

During the leegistration of this ratio, the law should have already acknowledged that this will be the real ratio for the money to distributed in the event of a sale. So even Mr Ngor has physically paid any $ on it, it should not be taken into consideration.

Hence, I think the outcome was not fair to Ms Wong, but fair morally.
(since Mr Ngor mentioned he only intended to give Ms wong the 99% only if he was the one to cheat on her.
But same time he can also don't honour this even he cheat de woh.

Overall analysis is that the problem lies with the law of properties purchasing and ownerships.

 

[NanoSpeed]

When i apply my clear state of mind analysis, I came out with these conclusions.

1. Ms wong is a greedy chicken, Pok Pok Pok.

2. Mr Ngor is a Chee hong ter nao, and put himself into this situation now.

3. The judge is suka yee gong judge .

4. The journalist just write whatever she knows without considering was it an understandable contents.

We should look at the very first level for the cause of this issue

During the leegistration of this ratio, the law should have already acknowledged that this will be the real ratio for the money to distributed in the event of a sale. So even Mr Ngor has physically paid any $ on it, it should not be taken into consideration.

Hence, I think the outcome was not fair to Ms Wong, but fair morally.
(since Mr Ngor mentioned he only intended to give Ms wong the 99% only if he was the one to cheat on her.
But same time he can also don't honour this even he cheat de woh.

Overall analysis is that the problem lies with the law of properties purchasing and ownerships.

Both purchased the property together. How to avoid paying additional ABSD if they buy a 2nd property ?

 

[sbfuncle]

View attachment 223379

Both purchased the property together. How to avoid paying additional ABSD if they buy a 2nd property ?

For this, I assume it was either the writer Selina anyhow put or ter nao Ngor assumed that with a lesser ratio leegistered for the first property, then he can avoid the absd for his next purchase.

 

[NanoSpeed]

For this, I assume it was either the writer Selina anyhow put or ter nao Ngor assumed that with a lesser ratio leegistered for the first property, then he can avoid the absd for his next purchase.

And how is this relevant ?

 

[NanoSpeed]

For this, I assume it was either the writer Selina anyhow put or ter nao Ngor assumed that with a lesser ratio leegistered for the first property, then he can avoid the absd for his next purchase.

And when Bui Bui Selina wrote this, which is not directly quoted from the judge, I know she doesn't understand the 99-to-1 scheme:

 

[sbfuncle]

And how is this relevant ?

View attachment 223380

I think this means if he plan to purchase another property, he will transfer his 1% share, leemove his name and avoid the absd on his next purchase.

I don't buy properties but I Google and see that

Yes — if you remove your ownership from your first property before buying the next one, you may avoid ABSD — but only if the sale is completed before the purchase.
Here’s how it works

---

If you sell (or transfer) your first property before buying the next:​

• You are no longer considered as owning any residential property,
• So you are treated as a first-time buyer again for ABSD purposes.

➤ Example:​

You're a Singapore Citizen:

• You sell your HDB flat, and the sale is completed before you exercise the Option to Purchase (OTP) for the next property →
  No ABSD for the next purchase.

---

If you buy the second property before selling the first:​

• You’re considered to own two properties,
• So ABSD applies, and you’ll pay 20% (for SC) on the second property.
• You can apply for a refund only if:
  • You're married,
  • Both spouses are on the new property's title,
  • And you sell the first property within 6 months of the new purchase (completion/TOP/COSC, whichever applicable).

---

What counts as "removing ownership"?​

Method	Treated as "no longer owning"?	ABSD impact
Selling (to anyone)	Yes	Avoid ABSD
Transferring to spouse or child	Yes (if fully transferred)	Avoid ABSD
Part-share transfer	Still own part	ABSD still applies
Decoupling	Yes (for the exiting party)	Exiting party avoids ABSD

Note: Decoupling is allowed for private property but not for HDB unless due to divorce or death.

---

To Avoid ABSD on Your Next Purchase:​

• Make sure your name is fully removed from the first property's title before signing the Option to Purchase (OTP) for the next one.
• Keep legal proof (e.g. Sale & Purchase Agreement, transfer deed) to show you were no longer an owner at time of new purchase.

---

 

[sbfuncle]

And when Bui Bui Selina wrote this, which is not directly quoted from the judge, I know she doesn't understand the 99-to-1 scheme:

View attachment 223381

Aiya as I told you many times, there are many people around us holding supposingly leespectable post and earning good incomes but luan luan Lai one.
That's why I so busy beating people to puppies mah
Just now I just beaten 1 female loctor to puppy when she tried to pull a fast one on me. (swear to violent death case)
After that she did some soul searching, do more leesearch and called me back and apologised to me.
I let her off and accepted her apology.

 

[NanoSpeed]

I think this means if he plan to purchase another property, he will transfer his 1% share, leemove his name and avoid the absd on his next purchase.

I don't buy properties but I Google and see that

Yes — if you remove your ownership from your first property before buying the next one, you may avoid ABSD — but only if the sale is completed before the purchase.
Here’s how it works

---

If you sell (or transfer) your first property before buying the next:​

• You are no longer considered as owning any residential property,
• So you are treated as a first-time buyer again for ABSD purposes.

➤ Example:​

You're a Singapore Citizen:

• You sell your HDB flat, and the sale is completed before you exercise the Option to Purchase (OTP) for the next property →
  No ABSD for the next purchase.

---

If you buy the second property before selling the first:​

• You’re considered to own two properties,
• So ABSD applies, and you’ll pay 20% (for SC) on the second property.
• You can apply for a refund only if:
  • You're married,
  • Both spouses are on the new property's title,
  • And you sell the first property within 6 months of the new purchase (completion/TOP/COSC, whichever applicable).

---

What counts as "removing ownership"?​

Method	Treated as "no longer owning"?	ABSD impact
Selling (to anyone)	Yes	Avoid ABSD
Transferring to spouse or child	Yes (if fully transferred)	Avoid ABSD
Part-share transfer	Still own part	ABSD still applies
Decoupling	Yes (for the exiting party)	Exiting party avoids ABSD

---

To Avoid ABSD on Your Next Purchase:​

• Make sure your name is fully removed from the first property's title before signing the Option to Purchase (OTP) for the next one.
• Keep legal proof (e.g. Sale & Purchase Agreement, transfer deed) to show you were no longer an owner at time of new purchase.

---

The keyword in that statement is "they" ... "when they buy a second property".