WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the charged offences: dishonesty in respect of s.409 (no evidence of misappropriation for accused's benefit), forgery and that the accused forged signatures for s.468 (expert evidence inconsistent and no proof accused forged signatures), and predicate offences/knowledge required for AMLA s4(1)(b); therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Offences Under Penal Code and AMLA / After Close of Prosecution: No Prima Facie; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Accused discharged and released without being called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409), Forgery (section 468), Money Laundering (section 4(1)(b) Amla), Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 Cr PC, Forensic Handwriting Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑money Laundering Commercial Crime Evidence Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409) Forgery (section 468) Money Laundering (section 4(1)(b) Amla) Prima Facie Assessment Under S.180 Cr PC +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecutor

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Offences Under Penal Code and AMLA / After Close of Prosecution: No Prima Facie; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established a prima facie case under section 409 Penal Code (criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery and intent under section 468 Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering under section 4(1)(b) AMLA including predicate offences and accused's knowledge or suspicion

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the charged offences: dishonesty in respect of s.409 (no evidence of misappropriation for accused's benefit), forgery and that the accused forged signatures for s.468 (expert evidence inconsistent and no proof accused forged signatures), and predicate offences/knowledge required for AMLA s4(1)(b); therefore no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and released without being called to enter defence

Orders

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