Man wrongly transfers $6,650 to ex-wife; ‘highly unreasonable’ conduct costs her over $7,000

In a judgment released on Sept 7, Deputy Registrar Mark Lim said the case could have been resolved immediately after the mistaken transfer.

ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Published Sep 08, 2026, 12:00 PM

Updated Sep 08, 2026, 02:16 PM

A man mistakenly transferred $6,650 to his ex-wife instead of a fintech platform, leading to a six-month legal dispute after she refused to return the money promptly.

The ex-wife delayed returning the funds by demanding excessive information and depositing the money with the police, actions the court found “highly unreasonable”.

The court ordered the ex-wife to pay $6,500 in legal costs, emphasising that unreasonable conduct can lead to serious consequences and increased expenses.

SINGAPORE – Instead of transferring $6,650 to fintech platform Wise, James Jonathan accidentally sent the money to his ex-wife Adel Ng because he had saved her in his contact list as “Wife”.

What followed was a six-month legal dispute that involved a police report, an unsuccessful application to strike out the man’s claim and allegations of misconduct against his lawyers.

The ex-wife has now been ordered to pay $6,500 in legal costs after a magistrate’s court found that her conduct was “highly unreasonable” and that she had unnecessarily prolonged the dispute.

Instead, the $6,650 ended up with the police and in court.

The former couple had divorced in 2021 but remained in contact over matters, including access to their child.

After Jonathan mistakenly transferred the money to Ng on Dec 7, 2025, he sent her at least 10 e-mails between Dec 7 and Dec 15, asking her to return the money.

It was only after the man sent a letter of demand through his lawyers on Dec 17 that she responded through her lawyers.

But rather than simply returning the money, the woman on Dec 25 claimed that she was concerned that she was a victim of a possible scam and asked for extensive information, including the man’s identity number, a copy of an identity document, the source of the money, why the transfer had been made in error and why it was urgent that the money be returned.

She asked him to indemnify her against “any and all liabilities and expenses” arising from her returning the money.

The next day, Dec 26, Ng deposited the $6,650 with the Singapore Police Force.

In her police report, she said she wanted to return the money “under cover of this police report” to avoid any misunderstanding or involvement with money from a questionable source or “bad actors (e.g., scammers and money launderers)”.

She said she believed the police were the proper authority to determine whether the claim for the money was legitimate.

On Dec 30, Jonathan sued Ng to seek the return of the $6,650.

In her defence, the woman described herself as a “passive recipient” of money from an “unknown and unverifiable source” and said she believed there was a real possibility that she was receiving scam messages.

But the court was unconvinced.

“Insofar as the defendant justifies her conduct by claiming that she was concerned that she was ‘confronted with a possible scam’, this beggars belief,” said the deputy registrar.

The two had previously corresponded by e-mail using the same addresses, the court noted. If she had any genuine concern about whether the e-mails were really from her former husband, nothing would have stopped her from checking with him directly.

“This is not a case of a complete stranger seeking the return of monies wrongly transferred,” said the deputy registrar.

The court also found that her requests for information on Dec 25 did not appear to be a genuine attempt to establish the man’s identity.

Rather, they appear calculated to vex her ex-husband, the deputy registrar said.

The requests were excessive, including demands for the source of the money, the reasons for the error, an identity document and wide indemnities.

More importantly, the woman did not appear to have genuinely been waiting for a response.

She made her police report and deposited the money with the police the very next day, without giving the man a reasonable opportunity to respond.

“It also bears noting that the request was made to the (ex-husband’s) solicitors on Christmas Day, when they could not reasonably have been expected to be working,” said the deputy registrar.

The dispute continued after the lawsuit was filed.

In May 2026, the woman applied to the court to strike out the man’s claim for the return of the money. The court described the application as “ill-conceived and without merit”, noting that she had failed to identify any specific ground for striking out the claim.

The deputy registrar said it appeared she had “retaliated” after the man filed his own application to strike out her defence.

She also made what the court described as “grave allegations” against the man and his lawyers, claiming that his lawyer had breached an undertaking to file a supplementary affidavit before a deadline and that the man had breached court directions to do the same.

The allegations prompted the court to call an in-person hearing at short notice, after which it found her allegations to be without merit.

The woman apologised “unreservedly” to the court and the man’s lawyer over the allegation concerning the solicitor.

The former couple eventually agreed to settle the substantive dispute in June, leaving only the issue of legal costs.

The police later confirmed that the $6,650 had been returned to the man on June 26.

In deciding the costs, Lim said Ng’s conduct before and after the lawsuit had been unreasonable, causing the action and unnecessarily prolonging it.

The deputy registrar also rejected her argument that the lawsuit was unnecessary, as she had already deposited the money with the police.

There was no legal authority to support the argument that depositing money with the police was an absolute defence to a civil claim, the court said.

The court also rejected her argument that she had made genuine efforts to settle the dispute.

One settlement letter accused the man of bringing the proceedings for an improper motive and of abusing the court process.

Another proposed resolving the case without costs while also saying that the woman might seek to recover her own costs.

And one day after she sent a draft agreement that was close to the eventual settlement, she made the allegations against the man and his lawyers.

“Taken in the round, the court finds that the defendant’s conduct was highly unreasonable,” said the deputy registrar.

The deputy registrar said the former husband was “understandably aggrieved” that a mistaken transfer to his ex-wife, which could have been remedied immediately, had instead escalated into a lawsuit lasting well over half a year.

The court ordered the woman to pay $6,500 in costs, plus GST. The total amount, $7,085, exceeded the original $6,650 that had triggered the dispute.

The case was a reminder that parties who fail to act reasonably could face “serious consequences”, including significant costs orders, the judge said.

Toh Yong Chuan is The Straits Times’ assistant business editor, covering manpower, political and policy issues, and law. He is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court.

Divorces, separations, annulments

9月7日公布的判决书中，副注册官马克·林表示，这起案件本可以在错误移交后立即得到解决。

《海峡时报》摄影：KELVIN CHNG

发布于 2026 年 9 月 8 日下午 12:00

更新于2026年9月8日下午2:16

一名男子误将 6650 美元转给了他的前妻，而不是转入一家金融科技平台，导致前妻拒绝及时退还这笔钱，双方因此展开了长达六个月的法律纠纷。

前妻通过索要过多信息和将钱款存入警察局来拖延归还款项，法院认为这些行为“极不合理”。

法院责令前妻支付 6500 美元的诉讼费，并强调不合理的行为可能导致严重的后果和增加的费用。

新加坡——詹姆斯·乔纳森本想将 6650 美元转账给金融科技平台 Wise，却不小心将钱转给了他的前妻阿黛尔·吴，因为他把她保存在联系人列表中，名字是“妻子”。

接下来是一场持续六个月的法律纠纷，其中包括一份警方报告、一项驳回该男子诉讼请求的申请（但未获成功）以及对其律师的不当行为指控。

地方法院裁定，前妻的行为“极不合理”，并且不必要地延长了纠纷，因此她被勒令支付 6500 美元的诉讼费。

结果，这 6650 美元最终落入了警方和法院的口袋。

这对前夫妇于 2021 年离婚，但仍就包括探视孩子在内的事宜保持联系。

2025 年 12 月 7 日，Jonathan 误将钱转给了 Ng，之后在 12 月 7 日至 12 月 15 日期间，他至少向 Ng 发送了 10 封电子邮件，要求她归还这笔钱。

直到 12 月 17 日该男子通过律师发出律师函后，她才通过自己的律师作出回应。

但这位女士并没有直接退还这笔钱，而是在 12 月 25 日声称她担心自己可能遭遇了诈骗，并要求提供大量信息，包括该男子的身份证号码、身份证复印件、钱的来源、转账出错的原因以及为什么急需退还这笔钱。

她要求他赔偿她因归还款项而产生的“任何及所有责任和费用”。

第二天，12月26日，吴先生将6650美元存入了新加坡警察部队。

她在报警报告中表示，她想“以这份报警报告为掩护”归还这笔钱，以避免任何误解或与来源可疑的资金或“不良分子（例如诈骗犯和洗钱者）”牵连。

她说，她认为警方才是判定这笔钱款索赔是否合法的适当机构。

12 月 30 日，乔纳森起诉吴，要求其返还 6,650 美元。

该女子辩称自己是“被动接受”来自“未知且无法核实的来源”的钱款，并表示她相信自己很有可能收到了诈骗信息。

但法院对此并不信服。

“被告辩称她担心自己‘可能遭遇诈骗’，以此为自己的行为开脱，这简直令人难以置信，”副注册官说道。

法庭指出，两人此前曾使用相同的电子邮件地址进行通信。如果她真的怀疑这些邮件是否真的来自她的前夫，她完全可以直接向他核实。

“这不是一个完全陌生的人要求追回被错误转账的款项的案例，”副注册官说。

法院还发现，她在 12 月 25 日提出的信息请求似乎并非真心实意地想要确定该男子的身份。

副注册官表示，相反，他们似乎有意激怒她的前夫。

这些要求过分了，包括要求提供资金来源、错误原因、身份证明文件以及广泛的赔偿。

更重要的是，这名女子似乎并没有真的在等待回复。

她第二天就向警方报案并将钱款存入警局，没有给那名男子任何合理的申辩机会。

“还值得注意的是，该请求是在圣诞节当天向（前夫的）律师提出的，当时他们不可能在工作，”副注册官说。

诉讼提起后，纠纷仍在继续。

2026年5月，该女子向法院申请驳回该男子要求返还款项的诉讼请求。法院认为该申请“考虑不周且毫无根据”，并指出她未能提出任何驳回诉讼请求的具体理由。

副注册官表示，该男子提交申请撤销她的辩护后，她似乎采取了“报复”行动。

她还对该男子及其律师提出了法庭所称的“严重指控”，声称该男子的律师违反了在截止日期前提交补充宣誓书的承诺，而该男子也违反了法庭的指示。

这些指控促使法院紧急召开了一次当庭听证会，之后法院认定她的指控毫无根据。

就有关律师的指控，该女子向法庭和该男子的律师“毫无保留地”道歉。

这对前夫妇最终在六月份同意解决实质性争议，只剩下诉讼费用问题需要解决。

警方后来证实，这笔 6650 美元已于 6 月 26 日归还给该男子。

在决定诉讼费用时，林表示，吴在诉讼前后的行为不合理，导致了诉讼并无谓地延长了诉讼时间。

副注册官还驳回了她关于诉讼没有必要的说法，因为她已经把钱交给了警方。

法院表示，没有任何法律依据支持将钱存入警察局可以作为民事诉讼的绝对抗辩理由这一论点。

法院还驳回了她关于自己已为解决纠纷做出真诚努力的说法。

其中一封和解信指控该男子出于不正当动机提起诉讼，并滥用法庭程序。

另一方提议不计诉讼费用解决此案，但同时也表示该女子可以自行追讨诉讼费用。

在她发出一份接近最终和解协议的草案协议的第二天，她就对该男子及其律师提出了指控。

“综合来看，法院认为被告的行为非常不合理，”副书记官说。

副注册官表示，前夫“感到愤慨是可以理解的”，因为原本可以立即纠正的错误转让给前妻的事情，反而升级为一场持续半年多的诉讼。

法院判令该女子支付6500美元的诉讼费，外加消费税。总金额为7085美元，超过了引发纠纷的最初金额6650美元。

法官表示，此案提醒各方，未能采取合理行动的当事人可能会面临“严重后果”，包括巨额诉讼费用。

杜永泉是《海峡时报》的助理商业编辑，负责报道人力资源、政治政策和法律方面的新闻。他同时也是最高法院的律师。

离婚、分居、婚姻无效