WONG TZE WEI

WONG TZE WEI

Prosecution failed to prove the essential dishonest/forgery/knowledge elements across the three heads: although accused had authority and control over accounts, there was no reliable evidence he dishonestly misapplied funds (s409), no cogent, unambiguous proof he forged the 73 cheques (s468) given inconsistencies in expert testimony and alternative explanations, and consequentially the predicate offences and requisite knowledge for AMLA (s4(1)(b)) were not established; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Citation
NA-62K-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / No Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; accused released and discharged without being called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust S409, Forgery for Purpose of Cheating S468, Money Laundering S4(1)(b) AMLA (act 613), Prima Facie Test Under S180 Criminal Procedure Code, Forensic Handwriting Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Fraud Money Laundering Banking Law Evidence Criminal Breach of Trust S409 Forgery for Purpose of Cheating S468 Money Laundering S4(1)(b) AMLA (act 613) +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / No Prima Facie Case at Close of Prosecution; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved a prima facie case under section 409 Penal Code (criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery under section 468 Penal Code (73 CIMB cheques)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering under section 4(1)(b) AMLA (Act 613)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove the essential dishonest/forgery/knowledge elements across the three heads: although accused had authority and control over accounts, there was no reliable evidence he dishonestly misapplied funds (s409), no cogent, unambiguous proof he forged the 73 cheques (s468) given inconsistencies in expert testimony and alternative explanations, and consequentially the predicate offences and requisite knowledge for AMLA (s4(1)(b)) were not established; therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged at the close of the prosecution case.

Court Disposition

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case; accused released and discharged without being called to enter defence

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged on all charges
  • Bail returned to surety