YAP KIM HIN

YAP KIM HIN

On the prosecution evidence as a whole — complainant identification of the original cheque, bank records and bank officers confirming deposit into accused's account, developer's testimony that accused lacked authority, and investigating officer's findings including subsequent withdrawal — the court found every ingredient of s420 proved; the accused failed to discharge the evidential and legal burden to prove the asserted common-practice/commission justification, so conviction followed and a custodial sentence of three years was imposed as proportionate given aggravating and mitigating factors.

Citation
WA-83-10121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Yap Kim Hin
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Case Number
WA-83-10121-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) / Trial Concluded; Convicted and Sentenced in Magistrate Court; Appeals Filed
Outcome
Accused convicted of cheating under Section 420 Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment from date of decision
Legal Topics
Cheating (s420 Penal Code), Prima Facie Test, Burden of Proof (evidence Act Ss104, 105), Bank Cheque and Bank Record Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act), Sentencing Principles and Proportionality, Criminal Procedure Code Provisions (s173, S180)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Banking/commercial Law Cheating (s420 Penal Code) Prima Facie Test Burden of Proof (evidence Act Ss104,105) Bank Cheque and Bank Record Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act) Sentencing Principles and Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Yap Kim Hin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) / Trial Concluded; Convicted and Sentenced in Magistrate Court; Appeals Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s420 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused dishonestly induced complainant to deliver property
  3. 3 Whether delivery of property (RM100,000 cheque) was proved and acted upon

Ratio Decidendi

On the prosecution evidence as a whole — complainant identification of the original cheque, bank records and bank officers confirming deposit into accused's account, developer's testimony that accused lacked authority, and investigating officer's findings including subsequent withdrawal — the court found every ingredient of s420 proved; the accused failed to discharge the evidential and legal burden to prove the asserted common-practice/commission justification, so conviction followed and a custodial sentence of three years was imposed as proportionate given aggravating and mitigating factors.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of cheating under Section 420 Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment from date of decision

Orders

  • Convicted under s420 Penal Code
  • Sentence: 3 years imprisonment from date of decision