1. ) LOH WEI KIANG 2. ) ONG TIAN YONG 3. ) ANG KONG TEA 4. ) TEY CHING AIK

1. ) LOH WEI KIANG 2. ) ONG TIAN YONG 3. ) ANG KONG TEA 4. ) TEY CHING AIK

Prosecution failed to prove on the evidence that the monies seized from the nine accused were used or intended for gambling; staging of the scene and gaps in seizure documentation undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the court ordered the monies returned and refused forfeiture to the government.

Citation
MC-83-450-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Loh Wei Kiang; Accused: Ong Tian Yong; Accused: Ang Kong Tea; Accused: Tey Ching Aik; Accused: Yeo Teck Wah; Accused: Chiew Chin Fah; Accused: E Kim Lam; Accused: Hen Kai Yang; Accused: Ee Siau Li
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 October 2024
Case Number
MC-83-450-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Common Gaming Houses Act Offence / Forfeiture Inquiry After Conviction
Outcome
Seized monies returned to accused; no forfeiture to the government
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Search and Seizure, Common Gaming Houses Act 1953, Right Against Self Incrimination, Article 5(1) Federal Constitution, Section 407 CPC
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Procedural Law Forfeiture Search and Seizure Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 Right Against Self Incrimination +2 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Loh Wei Kiang

Accused

Ong Tian Yong

Accused

Ang Kong Tea

Accused

Tey Ching Aik

Accused

Yeo Teck Wah

Accused

Chiew Chin Fah

Accused

E Kim Lam

Accused

Hen Kai Yang

Accused

Ee Siau Li

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Common Gaming Houses Act Offence / Forfeiture Inquiry After Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized monies are forfeitable under section 16(2) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether section 407(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to conduct an inquiry into ownership of seized monies
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved monies were used or intended for gaming

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove on the evidence that the monies seized from the nine accused were used or intended for gambling; staging of the scene and gaps in seizure documentation undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the court ordered the monies returned and refused forfeiture to the government.

Court Disposition

Seized monies returned to accused; no forfeiture to the government

Orders

  • Return RM91,340.00 to Loh Wei Kiang
  • Return RM5,390.00 to Ong Tian Yong