WONG TZE WEI

WONG TZE WEI

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements across charges: for s409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established because payments benefitted the company and were authorised by management; for s468 forgery and identification of the forger were not proven given contradictions and insufficiency in expert handwriting evidence and absence of proof defendant forged signatures; for AMLA the predicate offences were not established and there was no proof defendant knew or suspected proceeds were unlawful. Therefore no prima facie case existed and accused must be discharged.

Citation
NA-62K-5-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-5-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision at Close of Prosecution Evidence; Judge Found No Prima Facie Case and Discharged Accused Without Calling Defence
Outcome
Defendant discharged and released; acquitted at close of prosecution for all charges (no prima facie case); bail returned to surety.
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code), Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (section 468 Penal Code), Money Laundering (section 4(1)(b) AMLA Act 613), Prima Facie Test Under Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Handwriting/expert Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Commercial Crime Forgery Money Laundering Banking Law Evidence and Procedure Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code) Forgery for Purpose of Cheating (section 468 Penal Code) +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision at Close of Prosecution Evidence; Judge Found No Prima Facie Case and Discharged Accused Without Calling Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved prima facie case under section 409 (criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery and intent under section 468
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money‑laundering elements under section 4(1)(b) AMLA including predicate offence and knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements across charges: for s409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established because payments benefitted the company and were authorised by management; for s468 forgery and identification of the forger were not proven given contradictions and insufficiency in expert handwriting evidence and absence of proof defendant forged signatures; for AMLA the predicate offences were not established and there was no proof defendant knew or suspected proceeds were unlawful. Therefore no prima facie case existed and accused must be discharged.

Court Disposition

Defendant discharged and released; acquitted at close of prosecution for all charges (no prima facie case); bail returned to surety.

Orders

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