WONG TZE WEI

WONG TZE WEI

The court held the prosecution failed to prove key elements across all charges: dishonesty required for section 409 was not established; forgery and accused's authorship/intent under section 468 were not proven given expert inconsistency and lack of evidence linking accused to forgery; and AMLA offences failed because the predicate offences and accused's knowledge/suspicion were not established. Consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was released and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Close of Prosecution / No Prima Facie Case (accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence)
Outcome
Accused released and discharged; no prima facie case established; acquitted at close of prosecution stage
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409), Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (section 468), Money Laundering (section 4(1)(b) Amla), Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Money Laundering Commercial Crime Forensic Document Examination Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409) Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (section 468) Money Laundering (section 4(1)(b) Amla) Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 of the Criminal Procedure Code

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Close of Prosecution / No Prima Facie Case (accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved all elements of section 409 (agent status, control of funds, dishonest criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery under section 468 (documents forged, accused forged them, intent to use for cheating)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering under section 4(1)(b) AMLA (disposal of proceeds, predicate offence, knowledge/suspicion)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the prosecution failed to prove key elements across all charges: dishonesty required for section 409 was not established; forgery and accused's authorship/intent under section 468 were not proven given expert inconsistency and lack of evidence linking accused to forgery; and AMLA offences failed because the predicate offences and accused's knowledge/suspicion were not established. Consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was released and discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused released and discharged; no prima facie case established; acquitted at close of prosecution stage

Orders

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