WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on each count: for s.409 the dishonest/curious element was not proven because withdrawals were shown to fund company commitments and recipients confirmed payment; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the accused because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no direct evidence linking accused to forgery; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and accused's knowledge/suspicion. Consequently the court was not prepared to convict on the totality of prosecution evidence and discharged the accused without calling defence.

Citation
NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (charges Under Kanun Keseksaan Ss.409,468 and AMLA S.4(1)(b)) / Close of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged (no Prima Facie Case)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges (no prima facie case)
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (s.409), Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (s.468), Money Laundering (amla S.4(1)(b)), Prima Facie Test at Close of Prosecution Case, Handwriting Expert Evidence, Bank Account Signatory Authority
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Commercial Crime Anti‑money Laundering Banking Law Evidence Law Criminal Breach of Trust (s.409) Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (s.468) Money Laundering (amla S.4(1)(b)) +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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (charges Under Kanun Keseksaan Ss.409,468 and AMLA S.4(1)(b)) / Close of Prosecution Case Accused Discharged (no Prima Facie Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under s.409 Kanun Keseksaan (criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery and intent under s.468 Kanun Keseksaan
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering under s.4(1)(b) Akta 613 including predicate offence and knowledge/suspicion by accused

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on each count: for s.409 the dishonest/curious element was not proven because withdrawals were shown to fund company commitments and recipients confirmed payment; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the accused because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no direct evidence linking accused to forgery; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and accused's knowledge/suspicion. Consequently the court was not prepared to convict on the totality of prosecution evidence and discharged the accused without calling defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges (no prima facie case)

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged without being called to enter defence
  • Bail/surety returned to surety