WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements: for s.409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the checks were forged by the accused (handwriting expert evidence inconsistent and no direct proof accused forged signatures); for s.4(1)(b) AMLA prosecution failed to prove predicate offences and that accused knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect proceeds were illicit. Therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was lawfully discharged and released without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-106-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused/defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-106-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery, Money Laundering) / Close of Prosecution — Accused Discharged and Released; No Prima Facie Case Found
Outcome
Accused discharged and released; no prima facie case proven; not called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Section 409 Penal Code (criminal Breach of Trust), Section 468 Penal Code (forgery for Purpose of Cheating), Section 4(1)(b) Anti‑money Laundering Act 2001 (act 613), Prima Facie Test Under S.180 CPC, Signature/handwriting Expert Evidence, Bank HDA Procedures
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Fraud Forgery Money Laundering Banking/commercial Law Section 409 Penal Code (criminal Breach of Trust) Section 468 Penal Code (forgery for Purpose of Cheating) Section 4(1)(b) Anti‑money Laundering Act 2001 (act 613) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery, Money Laundering) / Close of Prosecution — Accused Discharged and Released; No Prima Facie Case Found

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved all elements of s.409 (agent status, control/entrustment, dishonest misappropriation)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery under s.468 (document forged, accused forged it, forged document intended for cheating)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering under s.4(1)(b) Act 613 (disposal/transfer of proceeds, predicate offence proven, accused knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect proceeds were illicit)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements: for s.409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the checks were forged by the accused (handwriting expert evidence inconsistent and no direct proof accused forged signatures); for s.4(1)(b) AMLA prosecution failed to prove predicate offences and that accused knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect proceeds were illicit. Therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was lawfully discharged and released without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released; no prima facie case proven; not called to enter defence

Orders

  • Accused discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution (released and not called to enter defence)
  • Bail returned to the surety