WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Court found prosecution proved agent status and control of accounts but failed to prove dishonesty required under s.409, failed to prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that they were forged with intent to cheat under s.468, and failed to prove predicate offences and accused's knowledge/reasonable suspicion under s.4(1)(b) AMLA; contradictions and lack of direct evidence as to forgery and dishonest intent meant no prima facie case existed and accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-120-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-120-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Close of Prosecution No Prima Facie Case; Accused Discharged
Outcome
Accused released and acquitted; no prima facie case; charges dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 409 Penal Code (criminal Breach of Trust), Section 468 Penal Code (forgery for Purpose of Cheating), Section 4(1)(b) AMLA (act 613), Prima Facie Test Under S.180 Cpc/looi Kow Chai, Forensic Handwriting Evidence, Authority of Signatories, Bank Account Withdrawal Procedures
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Commercial Crime Forgery Money Laundering Banking and Financial Transactions Evidence Law Section 409 Penal Code (criminal Breach of Trust) Section 468 Penal Code (forgery for Purpose of Cheating) +5 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

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Close of Prosecution No Prima Facie Case; Accused Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved elements of s.409 (agent status, control of company funds, dishonest criminal breach of trust)
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved elements of s.468 (documents were forged, accused forged them, intent to cheat)
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved elements of s.4(1)(b) AMLA (disposal of proceeds, predicate offence, accused's knowledge/reasonable suspicion)

Ratio Decidendi

Court found prosecution proved agent status and control of accounts but failed to prove dishonesty required under s.409, failed to prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that they were forged with intent to cheat under s.468, and failed to prove predicate offences and accused's knowledge/reasonable suspicion under s.4(1)(b) AMLA; contradictions and lack of direct evidence as to forgery and dishonest intent meant no prima facie case existed and accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused released and acquitted; no prima facie case; charges dismissed

Orders

  • Accused released and discharged without being called to enter defence
  • All charges under Section 409, Section 468 Penal Code and Section 4(1)(b) AMLA dismissed for want of prima facie case