News

Friends Sue Over Assets of Man Who Was Stabbed to Death by Father-in-Law

2022-05-05 , 12:50 pm

If you remember anything about the man who was fatally stabbed to death by his father-in-law back in 2017 at Boon Tat Street, here’s a sequel to everything that’s happened.

And if you have no idea what I’m talking about, here’s a quick recap of what happened.

Boon Tat Street Stabbing

Back in 2017, Spencer Tuppani was stabbed to death by his father-in-law, Tan Nam Seng, at Boon Tat Street.

The incident happened in the afternoon on 10 July 2017, and Tuppani was 38 years old then.

The latter is currently serving an eight-and-a-half-year jail term for stabbing Tuppani.

Tan, 74, was allegedly unhappy with how Tuppani had treated his daughter, Shyller Tan Cheng Cheng.

Additionally, Tan also thought that Tuppani had scammed him out of his shipping business.

Tuppani’s Friends Sueing Over Assets

Most recently, two of Tuppani’s friends have decided to sue all three co-administrators of Tuppani’s estate.

Jason Er Kok Yong, 42, and Lawrence Lim Soon Hwa, 46, sued Tuppani’s widow, her sister and first wife over a dispute regarding Tuppani’s assets.

The defendants are Shyller Tan Cheng Cheng, her sister Tan San San and Keh Lay Hong.

The men insisted that the both of them own one-third of the shares in a $4.6 million Holland Village property.

The property was rented to Wala Wala Cafe Bar, a well-known nightlife establishment.

Both men claimed that they had forked out $535,200 each in cash in order to purchase the property together with Tuppani.

They also added that Tuppani was the sole registered owner, and held the men’s shares for them on trust.

Er has also separately sued the co-administrators regarding a dispute over the ownership of a BMW M6, which was purchased in Tuppani’s name back in February 2014.

The car costs $566,000.

Thus far, the defendants have defended themselves by rejecting the pair’s claims. They also said that the assets were only owned by Tuppani.

Lorong Mambong Property Court Case

The High Court hearing for both suits began yesterday (4 May).

Currently, Er and Lim are represented by lawyer Oommen Mathew.

Both claimed that they were “close friends” with Tuppani, and that Tuppani encouraged them to enter the investing scene.

According to the duo, Tuppani proposed for Er and Lim to invest in the Lorong Mambong property alongside him at the end of 2016.

After discussing, all three men decided that they would contribute the same amount of money to purchase the property. Any profits or losses would then be divided equally amongst the three.

The property, which initially cost $4.8 million, was later sold to them for $4.6 million as Tuppani offset a loan that he had previously given to one of the two sellers.

Tuppani also took out a $3.68 million mortgage, which was supposed to be financed through rental income.

Er and Lim also highlighted that even though the property was bought in only Tuppani’s name, there was a mutual agreement that it would be owned by all three men equally.

A few months later in May 2017, Tuppani’s lawyers drafted a trust deed for Tuppani to declare that he was holding onto two-thirds of the shares in the property on trust on behalf of Er and Lim.

In May 2017, Mr Tuppani’s lawyers prepared a trust deed to declare that he held a two-thirds share in the property on trust for Mr Er and Mr Lim.

However, only Lim got to sign the document before Tuppani was killed.

With that piece of evidence, the pair insisted that it was sufficient to prove that Tuppani had recognised the fact that both men contributed to the property.

They also added that for those who knew Tuppani before his passing, it was “common knowledge” that he was often involved in major cash transactions.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

On the other hand, Nichol Yeo, the lawyer representing the defendants, pointed out in his opening statement that the evidence provided by the duo was insufficient.

He brought up how their evidence only included “bare assertions” of a verbal agreement, and that they did not provide the circumstances in which the trust deed was prepared.

BMW Court Case

With regards to the BMW, Er also brought up the verbal agreement between himself and Tuppani.

Er had agreed to let Tuppani hold the car on trust for him, and also emphasised how he chipped in over $273,000 in cash for the car.

In addition to that, Er also claimed that he footed the bill for the car’s monthly instalment payments for several months from 2014 to 2015, as well as from February 2017 to March 2019.

Apparently, Er was also the one who paid for the insurance and road tax bills.

Andy Chiok, who is representing the defendants in this court case, clarified that the instalment payments that Er paid for were for Er’s use of the car.

In response to Er suing them, the defendants have also since counter-claimed him for $1.1 million, stating that Tuppani paid Er for the cost of the car from August 2014 to May 2017.