WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although accused was shown to be an authorized signatory and to control accounts, there was no reliable evidence of dishonest appropriation (s409), no convincing proof that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that they were issued for the purpose of cheating (s468), and the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or suspicion required under AMLA s4(1)(b) were not proved; expert signature evidence was internally inconsistent and material witnesses confirmed payments benefitted the company or were made on management instruction, therefore accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Established) Accused Discharged and Acquitted Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges (no case to answer)
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code), Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (s468 Penal Code), Money Laundering (amla S4(1)(b)), Prima Facie Assessment Under S180 CPC
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Commercial Law Anti Money Laundering Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code) Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (s468 Penal Code) Money Laundering (amla S4(1)(b)) Prima Facie Assessment Under S180 CPC

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 / Close of Prosecution (no Prima Facie Established) Accused Discharged and Acquitted Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established prima facie case for s409 criminal breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery and intention to cheat under s468
  3. 3 Whether proceeds derived from predicate offences for AMLA s4(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although accused was shown to be an authorized signatory and to control accounts, there was no reliable evidence of dishonest appropriation (s409), no convincing proof that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that they were issued for the purpose of cheating (s468), and the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or suspicion required under AMLA s4(1)(b) were not proved; expert signature evidence was internally inconsistent and material witnesses confirmed payments benefitted the company or were made on management instruction, therefore accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges (no case to answer)

Orders

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