Buyer caught in 99-1 property deal drops lawsuit against agent, ERA and law firm
The buyer had alleged misrepresentation and negligence and sought S$180,945 in damages
[SINGAPORE] A homebuyer rapped by the taxman for attempting to evade stamp duty has withdrawn his lawsuit against property agency ERA Realty, its salesperson and a law firm over alleged misrepresentation and negligence linked to a so-called “99-1” property transaction.
The buyer, Lim Yuan Zhang, had filed a suit against the three in the State Courts of Singapore over a 99-to-1 transaction in May 2025, seeking S$180,945 in damages – the amount in additional tax and surcharge that the taxman had asked him to pay for having avoided paying the relevant stamp duty for his purchase of a condominium unit.
Lim claimed that the property agent, Jeremy Chan, had proposed the 99-to-1 structure during the purchase of a new-launch unit at the 99-year leasehold condominium, Normanton Park. This arrangement would allow Lim’s father to buy 1 per cent of the property and take on a joint loan to fund the purchase of the unit, while reducing the total amount of Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) payable for owning a second property.
Lim said Chan had misrepresented the legality of 99-to-1 transactions, as a “commonly used and foolproof method of reducing the ABSD payable” when purchasing a property.
Lim also argued that the conveyancing law firm, Anthony Law Corporation (ALC), failed to properly advise or warn him about the legal risks of the 99-to-1 arrangement, and proceeded with the transaction’s conveyance despite the risks.
He claimed that ALC was professionally negligent and in breach of both contract and fiduciary duty. Had he been properly advised, he said he would not have gone ahead with the arrangement.
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
ALC was one of three firms penalised by the Ministry of Law in August 2025 for anti-money laundering breaches in the purchase of properties linked to Singapore’s S$3 billion money laundering case.
The firm was ordered to pay a financial penalty of S$100,000. The head of its conveyancing department, Tan Chau Chuang, was also referred to the Law Society.
In his lawsuit, first filed in May 2025, Lim alleged that the agent, Chan, had supposedly obtained legal clearance in endorsing the 99-to-1 transaction, and would “guide and oversee” its execution. Persuaded by Chan’s representations, Lim paid S$49,250 for an option to purchase the S$985,000 unit on Nov 18, 2021.
Lim’s father purchased a 1 per cent interest in the property on Jan 26, 2022, completing the 99-to-1 transaction.
In December 2024, Iras ordered Lim and his father to pay S$246,744 – S$164,496 as ABSD and a surcharge of S$82,248. The surcharge was later lowered to S$16,449 after Lim’s appeal to Iras, bringing the total sum to S$180,945.
In the lawsuit, Lim suggested that the representations were fraudulent, with Chan either knowing they were false or “being reckless” with the truth so he could profit from the property purchase by earning a commission from either the developer or the law firm.
Further to this, Lim claimed that the property agency was responsible for training Chan as a real estate agent, including being “adequately knowledgeable” about the relevant laws and regulations.
He added that ERA failed to supervise its salesperson, and stood to “benefit substantially” from the transaction through commissions and business activity.
Defence
In their defence, Chan and ERA denied giving legal and tax advice for the property purchase.
The two said they were the appointed real estate agents of the property’s developer, not Lim.
Even if Chan owed Lim a duty of care, which he denied, this was not breached as Chan was not qualified or expected to advise on the legality of ABSD arrangements. Instead, he argued that the duty of care lay with ALC, Lim’s appointed solicitor.
Chan added that any statements made were based on materials provided during the law firm’s training sessions, including how the 99-to-1 structure could help minimise buyers’ ABSD payments.
Likewise, ERA claimed that it was not hired to perform any estate agency work for Lim, whether in the property purchase or 99-to-1 arrangement, nor did it receive any commission fee from him.
In any case, ERA pointed out that any loss and damage was suffered by Lim’s father and not himself. Even if it was found to have breached the duty of care, any recoverable loss should be limited to the penalty of S$16,449, not the full amount of S$180,945.
It also described Chan as an independent contractor, not an employee, and said it should not be “vicariously liable” for his actions.
Nonetheless, the agency claimed to have proper systems, training and supervision in place for its salespeople, who were required to comply with professional codes and not engage in illegal arrangements.
Meanwhile, ALC argued that it was asked to handle only conveyancing services for the 99-to-1 structure, not to give an opinion on its legality.
The firm also alleged that it did not know Lim’s identity or plans for the 99-to-1 transaction when preliminary enquiries were made by the agent, nor did the firm endorse it.
During their first and only in-person meeting, the firm said it had, as part of its standard practice, drawn Lim’s attention to Iras’ broad powers under the Stamp Duties Act, including its authority to disregard such transactions and impose surcharges.
It further argued that it was hired only to provide conveyancing services for the transfer of the 1 per cent share of property from Lim to his father, and that Lim was separately represented by another law firm, Acclaim Law.
“At no point in time did (Lim) seek (the firm’s) advice on the legality of the structure… (nor) in any event, endorse the said structure,” it said.
Court records showed that Lim discontinued the action against ERA, Chan and ALC in November, and each party bore its own costs.
The case is the latest in a string of lawsuits entangling property agents over purported sale arrangements for buyers to avoid paying more in ABSD.
Most recently in November, a couple sued a PropNex subsidiary, along with its salesperson and ALC, for an alleged breach of duty over another 99-to-1 property transaction. That was PropNex’s third reported lawsuit involving 99-to1 transactions.
The first reported case, in which the agency was sued for about S$1.2 million in January 2025, was withdrawn on Jan 2, 2026. A second lawsuit filed against it in February 2025 was withdrawn in October, PropNex disclosed in a bourse filing then.
ALC is one of three law firms singled out by MinLaw to be penalised for their involvement in the conveyancing of real estate properties seized in 2023’s S$3 billion anti-money laundering bust. In a statement in August, MinLaw said ALC had acted for nine clients to convey 25 properties valued at around S$135 million in total.
Among other breaches, MinLaw said then that the firm “did not corroborate or verify the clients’ explanations for why the transactions were being funded by seemingly unrelated third parties, even though these were red flags”.
ALC also continued to undertake transactions for some of these clients despite filing Suspicious Transaction Reports against them.
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
