Bankruptcy

ecureilx · Post by **ecureilx** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 9:44 am

wang12 wrote:It was a 'personal loan' made to him and signed as an IOU, and the payment plan was agreed upon in black and white. He did this to avoid going the alimony way. And yes the lawyer did the fast way, DRS was rejected by IPTO. IPTO is the issue now, not the lawyer or the ex-wife. So what to do about IPTO, will they send extradition request or cancel his passport if they know where he is?

I never heard of IPTO requesting extradition, but .. IPTO knows where your husband is, they have access to ICA records, from what I know .. you may run, but not hide.

Well, IPTO has been known to have messed up sometimes .. and I would say the best recourse is to get a lawyer in wherever you are, to get a counter part lawyer in Singapore, to work the details. And then engage IPTO directly will cost $ .. which is better than sitting tight and praying nothing happens. IPTO is also known to be slow sometimes, but, they do get their man once in a while.

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 3:46 pm

An alternative no one has mentioned yet... he pays her what he said (and they agreed) he would.

ecureilx · Post by **ecureilx** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 3:52 pm

JR8 wrote:An alternative no one has mentioned yet... he pays her what he said (and they agreed) he would.

beg your pardon, sir, but, the defendant is on record, having admitted to NOT PAYING what was agreed, when the demand was increased

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 4:31 pm

Squirrel, go back and read the post again.

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 4:39 pm

ecureilx wrote: beg your pardon, sir, but, the defendant is on record, having admitted to NOT PAYING what was agreed, when the demand was increased

I don't buy the back-fill retrospective justification of 'the demand increased' (that's irrelevant/a separate matter). Nor the alleged 'hounding', ditto irrelevent/separate matter. Nor lawyer claiming non-receipt of communications, that's irrelevent as long as he has proof of what he sent. So most of this is just chaff.

However the fact is he stopped paying what he was bound to, and that is why he is in the position that he is. Now presumably when he originally entered into this loan/repayment agreement he was happy with it, so it is unclear why he is now unhappy with it.

I understand he probably hates his ex-wife with a passion and that spending the next ten years 'on the run' might be worth it in his mind to have stuck one to her. On the other hand I am reminded of the stories of English neighbours who go to war over a perimeter fence that is 1" out of line, and simply end up completely bankrupting themselves...

Mad Scientist · Post by **Mad Scientist** » Fri, 13 Apr 2012 6:48 pm

solvent persons cannot be held in individual insolvency perpetually until their debts are fully settled. For example, in cases where insolvent persons have done their best to make payments and have no assets, or are old, sick and unemployed, the court may, upon application by the OA, the insolvent person or any interested person, discharge the insolvent person. The OA may also in his discretion, issue certificates discharging insolvent persons who have been in individual insolvency for more than 3 years, and their debts do not exceed $500,000, and the conduct of the insolvent persons have been good during the period of insolvency. A discharge by the court or by certificate issued by the OA, releases an insolvent person from all debts provable against him save for a few exceptions. Creditors would not be able to pursue their claims against the insolvent person any further.
http://app2.ipto.gov.sg/ContactInfo/tab ... fault.aspx
http://app2.ipto.gov.sg/LinkClick.aspx? ... &tabid=403
httpwww.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/44/39368700.pdf://www.iiiglobal.org/component/jdownloads/ ... /1080.html

@ chipmunk : you really need to read the OP post before you make comments as your views is totally irrelevant and it is damn confusing

The above is what I gather

Let's cut straight to the chase
1. Your hubby made an IOU with ex wife. This is a legal doc as signed by both. Whether it is an excuse to defer or circumvent alimony or not depends on any children involves usually it cost more on alimony if children is involve under care
2. Technically anything above $10K if you failed to meet the repayment schedule you are liable in the eyes of the court
3. She filed an injunction to get you Bankrupt under Chap 20 which is an individual bankruptcy. Did he fill the above forms ?
4. Hubby is assigned to an OA under IPTO and request statement of affairs. Technically whatever under matrimonial or prenuptial agreement in SG or if written specifically overseas asset is deemed. However exercising the recovery of overseas asset is an insurmountable task.Therefore your current marriage with hubby in OZ is NOT under the OA.
5. Extradition Act encompasses mostly criminal activities. Individual bankruptcy is NOT one of them But you are still liable if you happen to transit in SG etc. Hence the OA powers only stops at the departure gate per se
6. Now for renewal of SG PP will be under OA powers and you will have issues
7. Under the citizenship application in OZ you need to declare if you are an undeclared bankrupt or not which will proof to be an issue too
8. PR in OZ does not mean he can lives in OZ permanently as he is still a Sger.
Please be clear on these

2.

ecureilx · Post by **ecureilx** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 9:15 am

See, my contention is about the 'not paying anymore' part .. as a former debtor who was hounded by creditors, I was told by my Debt counsellor to NOT STOP PAYING the agreed / negotiated amount , else the creditor has a bigger case to throw at you ..

For the discharge .. and all, yes, you are right ...

Mad Scientist wrote:solvent persons cannot be held in individual insolvency perpetually until their debts are fully settled. For example, in cases where insolvent persons have done their best to make payments and have no assets, or are old, sick and unemployed, the court may, upon application by the OA, the insolvent person or any interested person, discharge the insolvent person. The OA may also in his discretion, issue certificates discharging insolvent persons who have been in individual insolvency for more than 3 years, and their debts do not exceed $500,000, and the conduct of the insolvent persons have been good during the period of insolvency. A discharge by the court or by certificate issued by the OA, releases an insolvent person from all debts provable against him save for a few exceptions.
.

Recently, there was a case of a person who was discharged, by years later, IPTO decided to act on the person because the person forgot to mention the inheritance from her sibling .. The case was thrown out due to other reasons but the Judge agreed with AGCs contention that IPTO has the right to go behind the debtor if they are deemed to have hidden assets or cash.

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:27 am

crawfishing again?

Mad Scientist · Post by **Mad Scientist** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 4:44 pm

@chipmunk: before you start digging into the nuts, you have to provide facts when comes to serious matter like this. If your debt collector said that then what is the base of it at the eyes of OA. There must be guideline of the ifs and the don'ts.In Singapore everything goes by the book. The complete guide on anything and everything in Singapore. It is far worse that the 10 year series that our children practise for GCE A level.
Providing hearsay would not help. Serious matter needs to be backed up with facts unless for some reason it is prohibited due to legality issue.
If I know something thru my circles but unable to state it for reasons that is contentious, I would only throw a few lights at the same direction without causing an uproar>Most would get my drift but that's about it. Usually these issues will become reality in not too distant future.
For myself , I would try my very best to be above board and gets my facts right before I even post. This helps a lot for those needing help and it also reflects on yourself as a person that can be depend on and trusted.
Not that I dispute your experience but your postings can be sometimes .........should I say "troubling"

I am not teaching you but since both of us are regulars in this forum , a gentle reminder for you to ponder.

Mad Scientist · Post by **Mad Scientist** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 5:44 pm

BTWI noticed OP edited the original post. I think OP is scared sh*tless on this issue. Or I could be wrong but .................hmmm......

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 7:48 pm

Mad Scientist wrote:BTWI noticed OP edited the original post. I think OP is scared sh*tless on this issue. Or I could be wrong but .................hmmm......

Which was I started by quoting it en bloc. This is the kind of thread where the OP goes back and deletes all their footprints...

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sun, 15 Apr 2012 8:59 pm

The only change I can see made to the original is the labeling of two countries as "H" and "A"

wang12 · Post by **wang12** » Mon, 16 Apr 2012 7:05 am

SMS, yes I changed the labeling as subsequent post already re-enforce the obvious.

MS, it's just being cautious as during my hubby's time in reservists, he was annually posted to a unit that just scouts forums for postings. Waste of tax payers money but I guess someone up there is even more paranoid. Any ways, thanks for your views.

Did he fill the above forms ? He did, and sent via courier which the OA denied receipt despite confirmation by tracking and courier company. While the under extradition treaty between the 2 countries does include bankruptcy, I am assuming its of a different nature. Also I see from records that all extraditions tend to be criminal cases and not civil cases.

ecureilx · Post by **ecureilx** » Mon, 16 Apr 2012 9:05 am

Mad Scientist wrote:@chipmunk: before you start digging into the nuts, you have to provide facts when comes to serious matter like this ...
Providing hearsay would not help. Serious matter needs to be backed up with facts unless for some reason it is prohibited due to legality issue.

Chief, I didn't write based on hearsay ..

I will PM you .. I am not going to place personal info here .. and I hope you understand that bit.

And that IPTO can go after a debtor after release - if the debtor is deemed to have hidden assets/cash or failed to do a full disclosure is true - you can ask any bankruptcy lawyer, or I would be more than happy to refer you to my own debt counsellor.

As for my stand that stopping the payment is a sure case for screwup stands, as I was advised by the debt counsellor, and me standing by the payment despite the creditor increasing the demand worked in my favour - something the OP's husband had failed to do, regardless of the reasoning.

SMS: not sure if I ruffled your feather today .. what's bothering you today ?

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:43 am

Nothing is bothering me today.

I made that post yesterday.

You tend to inject lots of useless (well meaning I'm sure) anecdotal data that just tends to confuse the OP as well as lots of other readers instead of answering with a direct answer or a links to the respective documents. Obfuscation doesn't help anybody.

SINGAPORE EXPATS FORUM
Singapore Expat Forum and Message Board for Expats in Singapore & Expatriates Relocating to Singapore

Bankruptcy

Who is online