Monday 14 December 2009

Sons ordered to pay dad’s $15m debt


The two sons of Indonesia-born businessman Agus Anwar have been ordered by the High Court to cough up the $15 million he owes to a private bank here.

1 comment:

Guanyu said...

Sons ordered to pay dad’s $15m debt

By Selina Lum
03 December 2009

The two sons of Indonesia-born businessman Agus Anwar have been ordered by the High Court to cough up the $15 million he owes to a private bank here.

The brothers, Mr. Patrick Adrian Anwar, 29, and Mr. Andrew Francis Anwar, 26, had signed documents agreeing to be liable for debts their father owed to the local branch of Societe Generale Bank & Trust.

The senior Mr. Anwar, a Singapore citizen and one-time bank owner, made headlines in 2004 for allegedly owing the Indonesian government 3.2 trillion rupiah.

The money, equivalent to $633 million at that time, was said to have been used to bail out two of his banks when they collapsed in 1997.

The current court case involves an investment account that Mr. Anwar opened with the bank in May last year. A month later, the bank also gave him access to credit lines.

When he defaulted on payments in October last year, the bank terminated the credit services.

The bank agreed to hold off legal action against Mr. Anwar on condition that his two sons take out mortgages on two apartments in Devonshire Road, which he had bought in their names.

To give their father time to settle his debts, the sons signed an agreement to pay the bank all sums of money their father chalked up.

When Mr. Anwar again failed to make payments, the bank turned to the sons.

When they too failed to pay up, the bank sued Mr. Agus Anwar, his sons and two investment holding companies each owned by one brother.

As of July, the sum due from the defendants was about $17 million. Some $2.3 million has been recovered from the sale of shares, payment of dividends and sale proceeds from the two mortgages.

Mr. Agus Anwar and the two companies did not make any defence in the suit, and in default, judgment was granted in favour of the bank.

The two brothers, however, raised the legal defence of ‘mistake’ - they claimed they did not know what they were signing.

They claimed that they had signed the documents by mistake as they believed at the time that they would not be held personally liable for their father’s debts.

They asserted that the bank knew they had signed the mortgages under a mistaken belief; they also contended that there was a misunderstanding between them and the bank.

But Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong dismissed their defences.

In a written judgment released last week, he said the brothers had read and understood the terms of the mortgage, and it was ‘difficult to understand’ how they could possibly claim to have signed them by mistake.

‘The only ‘mistake’ I found was the sons’ ‘mistaken’ belief that they are entitled to rely on the defence of mistake to deny their clear liability to the bank,’ he said.