A high net worth divorce is not a bigger version of an ordinary divorce. It is a different kind of war — fought over assets held through trusts, family companies, nominees and offshore structures; valuations that turn on expert evidence; and jurisdictions crossed in more ways than one. The lawyer who handles your neighbour’s divorce is not the lawyer for this one. Salem Ibrahim LLC acts as lead counsel in Singapore’s most consequential high net worth divorces — cases reported at every level, fought to worldwide freezing orders, and decided on outcomes measured in the tens of millions.

Our record is public, because our cases are reported —

$92 million worldwide Mareva injunction — lead counsel for celebrity client Jamie Chua in a hotly contested matrimonial case involving a worldwide freezing order (Chua Xin Yin v Nurdian Cuaca [2010] SGDC 540) Civelli v Mulacek [2019] SGHC 182 & [2020] SGCA 59 — multi-jurisdictional dispute spanning Texas, Europe, Singapore and Papua New Guinea, with transactions valued near USD 1 billion, fought through the High Court and Court of Appeal $7.9 million obtained for a wife in an acrimonious division of matrimonial assets — 50% of the pool 100% of the matrimonial assets obtained for a wife, with the husband’s appeal dismissed “Ancestral Home” trust defeated — succeeding in the High Court for the wife in defeating a purported trust claim constructed to dilute the matrimonial pool (Oei Su-Lynn v Koon Boon Kin & Others) UDA v UDB — five-judge Court of Appeal establishing the limits of the family court’s jurisdiction over third parties

What makes a high net worth divorce different

The money is rarely on the table. It is under it — held through trusts, family companies, nominees and cross-border structures. Three battlegrounds decide most of these cases: Valuation — what a business, shareholding or asset is truly worth, proved through expert evidence, not asserted in affidavits. Disclosure — forcing the true picture into the open through discovery, asset tracing and, where necessary, freezing orders before assets move beyond reach. Classification — whether an asset is matrimonial at all: trust claims, third-party interests, pre-acquired and inherited assets all attack the pool before division begins. Get those three right and most cases settle on realistic numbers. Get them wrong and you negotiate blind.

How we help

Worldwide Mareva injunctions and asset freezing orders — urgent applications to stop dissipation or transfer, before the money moves Asset tracing and discovery — locating and proving assets held through trusts, family companies, nominees and cross-border structures Complex valuations — business, shareholding and expert-valuation disputes in contested division proceedings Trust and third-party claims — including “ancestral home” and family-trust structures deployed to shrink the matrimonial pool Cross-border divorces — jurisdiction and forum strategy, overseas assets, and enforcement of Singapore orders abroad Appeals — High Court and Court of Appeal advocacy, including five-judge appeals

Big money or modest means

You get the same team that handles the landmark cases. We also act in straightforward matters — properly, quickly and without emotive theatre. But when the case is high net worth, contested and cross-border, that is where this practice is built to operate.

FAQ

There is no formal threshold. What defines these cases is complexity rather than a number — assets held through trusts, companies, nominees or offshore structures; business valuations in dispute; and cross-border elements. Our practice focuses on this end of the spectrum, where preparation and asset tracing decide outcomes.

A freezing order restraining a spouse from dissipating or transferring assets during proceedings — worldwide where necessary. If you suspect assets are being moved, act before they are gone: a freezing order applied for after the assets have moved is a salvage operation, not a rescue.

Not if the claim fails scrutiny. We succeeded in the High Court in defeating a purported “ancestral home” trust constructed to dilute the matrimonial pool, and have had decisions held wrongly decided overturned on appeal. Trust and third-party claims are attacked with evidence, not accepted on assertion.

The court applies a just-and-equitable division, weighing direct and indirect contributions. Outcomes range far beyond 50:50 — reported decisions include awards from 50% of the pool to the entirety of the matrimonial assets. The division is only as good as the pool proved, which is why valuation and disclosure dominate these cases.

In many cases, yes — subject to jurisdiction and forum questions, which can themselves decide the outcome. Cross-border strategy should be considered at the outset, before positions harden, and Singapore orders can often be enforced abroad.

Family proceedings carry reporting restrictions, but key rulings — freezing orders, asset division, trust challenges — are regularly reported and citable. Our record is public precisely because our cases are reported.