WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although the defendant was an authorised agent/signatory (elements 1 and 2 for s409 satisfied), prosecution failed to prove dishonest misuse of funds (element 3) under s409; prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the defendant or were demonstrably counterfeit (elements for s468 not proven); and AMLA offences failed because predicate offences were not established and there was no proof the defendant knew or had reasonable suspicion funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. Accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Citation
NA-62K-108-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant: Wong Tze Wei
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Case Number
NA-62K-108-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (charges: Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery, Amla) / Close of Prosecution Evidence — Prima Facie Assessment; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence
Outcome
Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges; released without being called to enter defence
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code), Forgery (s468 Penal Code), Money Laundering (s4(1)(b) Amla/act 613), Prima Facie / Discharge Under S180 CPC, Evidence / Expert Handwriting Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Commercial Crime Banking Law Anti‑money Laundering Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code) Forgery (s468 Penal Code) Money Laundering (s4(1)(b) Amla/act 613) Prima Facie / Discharge Under S180 CPC +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Wong Tze Wei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (charges: Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery, Amla) / Close of Prosecution Evidence — Prima Facie Assessment; Accused Discharged Without Being Called to Enter Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution established prima facie case under s409 for dishonest criminal breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved forgery and intent under s468
  3. 3 Whether prosecution proved money‑laundering elements under s4(1)(b) Act 613 including predicate offence and knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although the defendant was an authorised agent/signatory (elements 1 and 2 for s409 satisfied), prosecution failed to prove dishonest misuse of funds (element 3) under s409; prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the defendant or were demonstrably counterfeit (elements for s468 not proven); and AMLA offences failed because predicate offences were not established and there was no proof the defendant knew or had reasonable suspicion funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. Accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

Court Disposition

Accused discharged and acquitted on all charges; released without being called to enter defence

Orders

  • Accused discharged and freed without being called to enter defence on all charges
  • Bail monies returned to surety