S'pore man accidentally transfers S$6,650 to ex-wife, she doesn't return money, prolongs dispute, court orders her to pay S$7,085

A magistrate's court has ordered a woman in Singapore to pay her ex-husband a total of S$7,085 after displaying "highly unreasonable" conduct towards him.

Deputy Registrar Mark Lim noted in his judgement released on Sep. 7, 2026, that the man had accidentally transferred S$6,650 to her and asked her to return the money multiple times.

Instead of simply returning the money, she prolonged the matter in a legal dispute lasting six months, including filing a police report and accusing his lawyers of misconduct.

Letter of demand

The Straits Times reported that James Jonathan intended to transfer the money to an online financial technology company, but mistakenly transferred it to his ex-wife Adel Ng after saving her as "Wife" in his contacts.

According to the judgement, the pair, who were formerly married and finalised their divorce in 2021, continued to remain in contact on matters including access to their child.

Jonathan then sent Ng at least 10 emails from Dec. 7, 2025, to Dec. 15, 2025, to inform her of the mistaken transfer and request for the money to be returned.

On Dec. 17, 2025, he issued her a letter of demand through his lawyers after she did not respond.

Concerned about getting scammed

Ng claimed that she was concerned about being a victim of a possible scam, and instructed her lawyers to respond in a letter dated Dec. 25, 2025, the judgement stated.

It requested for extensive information, which included Jonathan's identity number, a copy of an identity document and the source of the money.

The letter also questioned the reasons for the "error", and the reasons for the urgency in returning the money.

Police report

The next day on Dec. 26, 2025, Ng deposited the S$6,650 with the police.

She said in her police report that she wished to "return this money under cover of this police report, so as to avoid any misunderstanding or involvement with funds questionable source or bad actors (eg, scammers and money launderers), etc."

Ng added that she felt "the Singapore Police Force (SPF) were the proper authority to determine the legitimacy of the claim [she] was confronted with at that time".

On the same day, Ng's lawyers sent a further email to the Jonathan's lawyers stating they were instructed that Ng "has since deposited the funds in question with the Singapore Police Force".

Sued, defence

A few days later on Dec. 30, 2025, Jonathan sued Ng for the return of the S$6,650.

She filed her defence on Feb. 27, 2026, claiming she was a "passive recipient of S$6,650 of unknown and unverifiable source", and believed there was a "real possibility" she was getting scam messages.

Subsequently in May 2026, both parties filed to strike out each other's applications, with Ng's application being dismissed.

Accused lawyers of misconduct

On Jun. 16, 2026, Ng filed a letter to the court which alleged that Jonathan's lawyers had displayed misconduct and he himself had breached the court's directions, the judgement further stated.

On Jun. 19, 2026, Ng filed a further letter apologising "unreservedly" to the court and to Jonathan's lawyers.

However, she maintained her allegation that he had breached the court's directions.

On the same day, the court found that both Jonathan and his lawyers had not breached the court's directions.

ST reported that the police later confirmed that the S$6,650 had been returned to Jonathan on Jun. 26, 2026.

Decision on costs of action

The judgement further stated that Ng was ordered to pay Jonathan S$6,500 in costs, plus GST, which ST reported amounted to S$7,085.

Lim then laid out his decision on the costs of the action, calling Ng's conduct "so unreasonable" and noted that it unnecessarily prolonged the matter.

After receiving Jonathan's letter of demand, Ng first responded through her lawyers that they needed more time to take instructions, before requesting documents and information that were excessive and unreasonable.

Rather than a genuine good faith effort to ascertain Jonathan's identity, they appeared calculated to vex him, Lim said.

In addition, Ng had further indefinitely delayed any prospect of returning the money by depositing it with the police.

While she justified her conduct by claiming that she was concerned that she was "confronted with a possible scam", Lim said "this beggars belief".

Lim pointed out that Jonathan was "understandably aggrieved by the fact that a mistaken transfer... to his ex-wife that could have been remedied right away eventually escalated into a lawsuit that [went on] for well over half a year".