[Jabatan Peguam Negara] PATHMARAJAH A/L MYLVAGANAM

[Jabatan Peguam Negara] PATHMARAJAH A/L MYLVAGANAM

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: SP21 was an interested, inconsistent and uncorroborated witness whose testimony could not sustain allegations of conspiracy or knowledge by the defendant; prosecution omitted to call material witnesses (warranting adverse inference); no cogent evidence proved the defendant knew the documents were forged; consequently the accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution for both the predicate offences and AMLA counts.

Citation
WA-62K-117-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 May 2023
Case Number
WA-62K-117-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (forgery, Conspiracy, Use of Forged Documents, AMLA Money Laundering) / End of Prosecution Case — Decision on Prima Facie (no Case to Answer)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; discharged and released without being called to enter defence on all predicate and AMLA charges.
Legal Topics
Forgery, Conspiracy, Use of Forged Document, No Case to Answer / S180 KTJ, Adverse Inference S114 Evidence Act, Mens Rea / Knowledge Element
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Evidence Anti‑money Laundering Forgery Conspiracy Use of Forged Document No Case to Answer / S180 KTJ Adverse Inference S114 Evidence Act +1 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (forgery, Conspiracy, Use of Forged Documents, AMLA Money Laundering) / End of Prosecution Case — Decision on Prima Facie (no Case to Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under ss 109/468/471/465 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether defendant conspired to forge documents or merely acted as conveyancing solicitor
  3. 3 Whether testimony of interested witness (SP21) was credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case: SP21 was an interested, inconsistent and uncorroborated witness whose testimony could not sustain allegations of conspiracy or knowledge by the defendant; prosecution omitted to call material witnesses (warranting adverse inference); no cogent evidence proved the defendant knew the documents were forged; consequently the accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution for both the predicate offences and AMLA counts.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; discharged and released without being called to enter defence on all predicate and AMLA charges.

Orders

  • Accused Pathmarajah a/l Mylvaganam is discharged and acquitted without being called to enter his defence on all charges (predicate offences under Penal Code and AMLA offences)
  • No further orders recorded in judgment (costs not awarded)