SINGAPORE — A chief executive who spent more than S$468,000 on his former girlfriend during their relationship has lost his attempt to recover the money after Singapore’s High Court ruled that most of the lavish spending amounted to gifts — not loans.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin dismissed the claim by Chander Agarwal, the CEO and managing director of Indian logistics company TCI Express, against his former girlfriend Felicia Lee on Sept. 9, 2026. The court found that Agarwal failed to establish that the disputed sums were loans Lee had agreed to repay.
The case involved more than a breakup and a bitter fight over money. It raised a central question for the court: When does lavish spending in a romantic relationship become a loan — and when is it simply a gift?
S$468,000 Spent on Trips, Credit Cards and Luxury
According to the High Court judgment as reported by AsiaOne and The Straits Times, Agarwal sought to recover S$468,090 spent during his relationship with Lee.
Among the major expenses were:
- S$206,000 in credit card charges
- S$129,000 on overseas trips
- S$17,000 for a feng shui master for Lee’s flat
- S$30,000 for a Stanford-NUS executive programme
The judge ruled that most of the sums were gifts willingly given by Agarwal during the relationship. The court also found that he failed to prove that other disputed amounts, including an alleged S$50,000 loan to help Lee clear a debt to a former employer, had actually been given as claimed.
Judge: There Was No Evidence She Agreed to Repay Him
The court found a major weakness in Agarwal’s case: there was no convincing evidence that Lee had requested the money as loans or agreed to repay it.
Judge Lee noted that even though informal arrangements between romantic partners are not unusual, Agarwal could not produce messages showing Lee acknowledging the alleged loans or promising repayment.
Instead, messages presented in court reportedly painted a very different picture.
Before their relationship began, Agarwal had already given Lee expensive gifts and paid for luxury experiences without expecting repayment. When Lee asked in an August 2022 WhatsApp exchange how she could repay him, Agarwal reportedly replied: “No need. I am not a moneylender.” )
‘Anything You Want’: Court Examines Their Messages
The relationship between the pair began in September 2022 after they had known each other for several years.
They had met on a flight in 2019, after which Agarwal contacted Lee on Facebook.
During their relationship, Agarwal offered her a monthly budget for expenses and later allowed her to use his American Express Centurion Card.
In one message, he reportedly told her she no longer had a budget and could have “Anything you want.”
Another message encouraged her to spoil herself.
Those communications became crucial to the court’s assessment of whether the spending was intended as loans.
The judge found Agarwal’s later argument — that expenses automatically became loans once Lee accepted his offers to spend money on her — to be contrary to common sense and unsustainable.
Handwritten Agreement Raised Questions
Agarwal also relied on a handwritten agreement that he said had been signed by Lee.
The document purportedly stated that monthly amounts of between S$10,000 and S$25,000 received from Agarwal remained his property.
However, Lee denied signing or seeing the document before the court proceedings.
Judge Lee found the circumstances surrounding the agreement suspicious and gave limited weight to a handwriting expert’s opinion regarding the signature.
The court also noted that Agarwal did not initially mention the alleged agreement when he first filed his claim, only referring to it months later in an amended statement.
A Breakup Turned Into a Courtroom Fight
The relationship ended in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity.
He filed his lawsuit in March 2024, seeking to recover the money and arguing that Lee had induced him to provide the disputed sums through alleged false representations.
But the judge rejected that argument.
The court found that Agarwal’s spending during the relationship appeared consistent with how he had treated Lee even before they officially became a couple.
Evidence also showed that Agarwal himself had sexual relations with other women during the relationship, which the judge said cast doubt on his argument that he believed the relationship was genuine and exclusive in the way he claimed.
Judge Delivers Blunt Assessment
In his written judgment, Senior Judge Lee said the evidence showed that Agarwal, who was deeply enamored with Lee, had showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship.
The judge concluded that after the relationship ended badly, Agarwal became determined to recover what he had spent.
The ruling ultimately draws a clear distinction between money voluntarily spent on a romantic partner and money that can legally be proven to have been loaned.
A person may spend large sums during a relationship, but that alone does not automatically create a legal obligation for the recipient to repay the money.
The Bottom Line
A Singapore CEO spent S$468,090 on his girlfriend during their relationship — but after the romance ended, the High Court ruled that he could not simply turn those expenses into loans and demand the money back.
The judge found that most of the disputed spending was made as gifts and that there was insufficient evidence showing the former girlfriend had agreed to repay the money.
The case serves as a dramatic reminder that when love, luxury and money collide, a breakup does not automatically transform gifts into debts.
But the ruling leaves one question that could resonate far beyond this high-profile relationship: when couples spend huge amounts on each other without written agreements, how much can either side really expect to recover once the romance is over?
WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.D
Leave a Reply