VINOAD A/L SADASIVAM

VINOAD A/L SADASIVAM

The High Court upheld the convictions because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st appellant dishonestly induced the victim to transfer funds by exploiting trust and blank forms, and the 2nd appellant received, concealed and moved the proceeds in his account (s424) and thereby received proceeds of unlawful activity under AMLA; the amended wording did not vitiate s424 liability; evidentiary gaps (CCTV, non‑called recipients) were immaterial; sentences for the 2nd appellant were increased for aggravating factors.

Citation
BA-42K-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Manimala A/P Muniandy; Appellant: Vinoad A/L Sadasivam; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Case Number
BA-42K-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Judgment on Conviction and Sentence (appeal by Accused and Cross Appeal by Prosecution)
Outcome
Appeals by both accused against conviction dismissed; convictions upheld; cross‑appeal by Prosecution allowed in part and sentences for 2nd appellant increased.
Legal Topics
Cheating (section 420 Penal Code), Dishonest Removal/ Concealment (section 424 Penal Code), AMLA S4(1)(b) (proceeds of Unlawful Activity), Sentencing (increase on Appeal), Joint Trial, Documentary Evidence and Expert Handwriting Evidence, Non Production of CCTV
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑money Laundering/proceeds of Crime Banking/financial Crime Evidence Law Cheating (section 420 Penal Code) Dishonest Removal/ Concealment (section 424 Penal Code) AMLA S4(1)(b) (proceeds of Unlawful Activity) Sentencing (increase on Appeal) +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manimala A/P Muniandy

Appellant

Vinoad A/L Sadasivam

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Judgment on Conviction and Sentence (appeal by Accused and Cross Appeal by Prosecution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st appellant dishonestly induced the victim to deliver property by falsely marketing a fixed deposit promotion (s420)
  2. 2 Whether the amended charge against the 2nd appellant using the word 'menerima' fits within s424 offence elements
  3. 3 Whether absence/non‑production of CCTV and signing of blank forms undermines conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the convictions because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st appellant dishonestly induced the victim to transfer funds by exploiting trust and blank forms, and the 2nd appellant received, concealed and moved the proceeds in his account (s424) and thereby received proceeds of unlawful activity under AMLA; the amended wording did not vitiate s424 liability; evidentiary gaps (CCTV, non‑called recipients) were immaterial; sentences for the 2nd appellant were increased for aggravating factors.

Court Disposition

Appeals by both accused against conviction dismissed; convictions upheld; cross‑appeal by Prosecution allowed in part and sentences for 2nd appellant increased.

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction dismissed; convictions for 1st appellant under s420 and for 2nd appellant under s424 and AMLA s4(1)(b) are upheld
  • Sentence of 1st appellant (s420) of 5 years imprisonment and fine RM30,000 (default 1 year) upheld