1. ) TEO TZI SIN 2. ) WONG POH WAH

1. ) TEO TZI SIN 2. ) WONG POH WAH

Court accepted guilty pleas, found elements of s.218(1)(c) proven on admitted facts and exhibits, balanced mitigating (first offenders, guilty plea, cooperation, mitigation on economic hardship) and aggravating factors (extent of payments versus company profit and public interest in deterrence) and sentenced each accused to a fine of RM100,000 each, failing which 6 months imprisonment; the court refused to grant an exemption affecting s.198 disqualification because no statutory power exists under s.218(2) to exclude operation of s.198 and s.198 is a separate statutory prohibition.

Citation
WA-63-6-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Accused: Teo Tzi Sin; Accused: Wong Poh Wah
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 January 2025
Case Number
WA-63-6-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal by Deputy Public Prosecutor Against Sentence
Outcome
Accused convicted and sentenced; appeal by Deputy Public Prosecutor against leniency noted (reasons address sentencing and refusal to grant exemption)
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Misappropriation of Company Property, Sentencing Principles, Disqualification of Directors Under Companies Act 2016
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Company Law Corporate Governance Directors' Duties Misappropriation of Company Property Sentencing Principles Disqualification of Directors Under Companies Act 2016

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Teo Tzi Sin

Accused

Wong Poh Wah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal by Deputy Public Prosecutor Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether directors committed an offence under s.218(1)(c) Companies Act 2016 read with s.34 Penal Code
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for the offence having regard to deterrence, mitigation and first offender status
  3. 3 Whether the court may grant an exemption to prevent operation of s.198 Companies Act 2016 (disqualification)

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted guilty pleas, found elements of s.218(1)(c) proven on admitted facts and exhibits, balanced mitigating (first offenders, guilty plea, cooperation, mitigation on economic hardship) and aggravating factors (extent of payments versus company profit and public interest in deterrence) and sentenced each accused to a fine of RM100,000 each, failing which 6 months imprisonment; the court refused to grant an exemption affecting s.198 disqualification because no statutory power exists under s.218(2) to exclude operation of s.198 and s.198 is a separate statutory prohibition.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted and sentenced; appeal by Deputy Public Prosecutor against leniency noted (reasons address sentencing and refusal to grant exemption)

Orders

  • Each accused fined RM100000; in default of payment each to serve 6 months imprisonment
  • Original exhibits returned to the prosecution