WONG TZE WEI

WONG TZE WEI

Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of the charged offences: although accused was shown to be an authorised signatory and manager (s.409 element 1 & 2), there was no convincing evidence of dishonest misappropriation; handwriting expert evidence was inconsistent and did not prove accused forged SP3's signatures (s.468 elements 1–2 unresolved); consequently predicate offences for AMLA and knowledge/suspicion elements under s.4(1)(b) were not proved. On maximum evaluation of prosecution case the court was not prepared to convict; prima facie case not made out and accused discharged without being called to defend.

Citation
NA-62K-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: WONG TZE WEI
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Discharged at Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Case); Acquitted Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution (no prima facie case); released without being called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (s.409 Penal Code), Forgery for the Purpose of Cheating (s.468 Penal Code), Money Laundering (s.4(1)(b) AMLA Act 613), Prima Facie / No Case to Answer (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code Jurisprudence)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑money Laundering Banking/commercial Law Evidence (forensic Handwriting) Criminal Breach of Trust (s.409 Penal Code) Forgery for the Purpose of Cheating (s.468 Penal Code) Money Laundering (s.4(1)(b) AMLA Act 613) Prima Facie / No Case to Answer (s.180 Criminal Procedure Code Jurisprudence)

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

WONG TZE WEI

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Discharged at Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Case); Acquitted Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved all elements of s.409 (criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery under s.468 and that accused forged signatures
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money‑laundering under s.4(1)(b) AMLA including predicate offence

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of the charged offences: although accused was shown to be an authorised signatory and manager (s.409 element 1 & 2), there was no convincing evidence of dishonest misappropriation; handwriting expert evidence was inconsistent and did not prove accused forged SP3's signatures (s.468 elements 1–2 unresolved); consequently predicate offences for AMLA and knowledge/suspicion elements under s.4(1)(b) were not proved. On maximum evaluation of prosecution case the court was not prepared to convict; prima facie case not made out and accused discharged without being called to defend.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution (no prima facie case); released without being called to enter defence

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged without being called to enter defence
  • Bail returned to surety