PATHMARAJAH A/L MYLVAGANAM

PATHMARAJAH A/L MYLVAGANAM

The court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: the key witness (SP21) was materially inconsistent and lacked corroboration, crucial material witnesses were not called (permitting adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act), and there was insufficient evidence to infer the accused's involvement in a conspiracy or cognitive knowledge that documents were forged; because the predicate offences were not proven the AMLA counts likewise failed. Accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Citation
WA-62K-118-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 May 2023
Case Number
WA-62K-118-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (forgery, Fraud and Money Laundering) / Decision at Close of Prosecution Case (acquittal Without Calling Accused to Enter Defence)
Outcome
Accused Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam discharged and acquitted; prosecution failed to establish prima facie case on predicate and AMLA charges
Legal Topics
Conspiracy (s107/s109 Penal Code), Forgery (s468 Penal Code), Using Forged Document (s471 Penal Code), Prima Facie Test (s180 Criminal Procedure Code), AMLA S4(1)(b) Predicate Offence Requirement, Adverse Inference S114(g) Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Fraud and Forgery Anti‑money Laundering Conspiracy (s107/s109 Penal Code) Forgery (s468 Penal Code) Using Forged Document (s471 Penal Code) Prima Facie Test (s180 Criminal Procedure Code) AMLA S4(1)(b) Predicate Offence Requirement +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (forgery, Fraud and Money Laundering) / Decision at Close of Prosecution Case (acquittal Without Calling Accused to Enter Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under s109 read with s468 and s471 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused conspired to forge documents and thereby abetted the offences
  3. 3 Whether the accused knew the documents were forged (mens rea for s471)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: the key witness (SP21) was materially inconsistent and lacked corroboration, crucial material witnesses were not called (permitting adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act), and there was insufficient evidence to infer the accused's involvement in a conspiracy or cognitive knowledge that documents were forged; because the predicate offences were not proven the AMLA counts likewise failed. Accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam discharged and acquitted; prosecution failed to establish prima facie case on predicate and AMLA charges

Orders

  • Accused discharged and acquitted of all charges (all predicate offences under Penal Code and all AMLA counts) without being called to enter defence