WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of all charges: for s409 the required dishonest misapplication was not established; for s468 forgery and the accused's role in forging signatures were not proven (expert evidence inconsistent and no direct evidence accused forged signatures); for AMLA the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or reasonable suspicion were not proven; consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution.

Citation
NA-62K-92-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Defendant: WONG TZE WEI
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-92-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Breach of Trust (s409), Forgery (s468), Money Laundering (s4(1)(b) Amla) / Close of Prosecution Acquitted (no Prima Facie Case)
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts.
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 Assessment at Close of Prosecution, Handwriting/expert Signature Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Banking Law Anti Money Laundering Law Evidence Expert Evidence 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 Assessment at Close of Prosecution +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

WONG TZE WEI

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Breach of Trust (s409), Forgery (s468), Money Laundering (s4(1)(b) Amla) / Close of Prosecution Acquitted (no Prima Facie Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established that accused, as agent, dishonestly misapplied company funds (elements of s409)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved accused forged signatures on 73 cheques and intended to use forged documents to cheat (elements of s468)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money laundering: proceeds were from predicate offences and accused had knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect (elements of s4(1)(b) AMLA)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of all charges: for s409 the required dishonest misapplication was not established; for s468 forgery and the accused's role in forging signatures were not proven (expert evidence inconsistent and no direct evidence accused forged signatures); for AMLA the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or reasonable suspicion were not proven; consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted; prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts.

Orders

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