Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of trust

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

1. ) Hernam Singh A/l Karam Singh 2. ) Baljit Kaur A/p Gurdit Singh 1. ) Ranjeet Singh A/l Bakshish Singh 2. ) RAJENDER KAUR A/P PRITAM SINGH

Citation

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, absence of crucial documentary evidence (no power of attorney, no bank witnesses, no receipts/deed of settlement), and credible documentary and witness evidence for the defendants (signed sale agreement, lawyer attestation, JPJ records); accordingly the plaintiffs' claims and the first defendant's counterclaim were dismissed with costs.
21 Jan 2026

KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD CHONG KIM LOY

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-73-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-73-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly found that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of a trust because the required certainties (intention, subject matter, objects) were not established and there was no documentary linkage of the cheques to identified suppliers; there were no substantial or compelling reasons to disturb those factual findings, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
15 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD YUSOF BIN MOHAMAD ABDUL RAHMAN

Citation

AC-62JSK-27-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62JSK-27-10/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Because the offence involved a child victim who was the accused's stepdaughter (a breach of trust), the accused was a repeat sexual offender, and public interest demanded deterrence and denunciation, the court imposed an immediate custodial sentence of eight years, an additional two years to run consecutively under s16, two strokes, compulsory counselling under s26 and one year police supervision under s27; the sentence was ordered to commence from the date of conviction and not backdated.
5 Jan 2026

Chandra Sekar 1. ) Sunthar A/L Peria Thamby 2. ) Nisham Electrical & Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to refuse joinder because the pleaded allegations against the proposed defendant lacked sufficient particularity and clarity at the interlocutory stage, there was significant potential prejudice to a private individual who appears more properly called as a witness, and limitation issues could not be conclusively resolved interlocutorily; accordingly joinder was not justifiable and was refused with costs.
22 Dec 2025

Firdaus Rizal Bin Abdul Manan

Citation

AC-62K-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court concluded that the prolonged duration of offending (2012–2019), the large aggregate losses involving multiple victims (millions of ringgit), absence of evidence of restitution, and the separate nature of each offence justified significant punishment and separate (consecutive) sentences; guilty pleas and medical/personal mitigation reduced but did not eliminate the need for deterrent sentences, leading to two years' imprisonment, two strokes, and RM10,000 fine per count, with imprisonment to run separately for each count.
22 Dec 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Citation

AC-62K-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-3-12/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found aggravating factors (offending from 2012 to 2019, large cumulative losses involving multiple victims, no restitution, separate transactions involving different parties) outweighed mitigating factors (age, family dependents, health, guilty pleas). Therefore the court imposed custodial sentences and fines for each count and directed sentences to run separately (consecutively) rather than concurrently; corporal punishment was limited given health considerations.
22 Dec 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Citation

AC-62K-13-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-13-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the prolonged period of offences (2012–2019), the large aggregate losses involving multiple victims (some deceased), absence of restitution, and that the offences were separate transactions at different times, the court imposed substantial custodial sentences and fines; guilty pleas and personal mitigation reduced but did not avoid significant punishment; sentences for each count are to run separately (consecutively) and corporal punishment was moderated due to medical conditions.
22 Dec 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Citation

AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the prolonged period of offending across separate transactions involving different victims and significant monetary losses with no restitution, the court found the offences serious and deserving of substantial punishment; mitigation (guilty plea, health, family circumstances) was insufficient to warrant concurrency or significant discount, therefore imposed two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine per count with imprisonment in default, sentences to run consecutively for each of the nine counts.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-91-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-91-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove essential elements for all charges: for s.409 the prosecution did not prove dishonest criminal breach of trust (third element); for s.468 the prosecution failed to prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that the cheques were proved false beyond reasonable doubt given contradictions and lack of proof of authorship; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) the predicate offences underpinning the alleged proceeds were not established and there was no proof the accused knew or ought to have suspected the illicit origin. Consequently no prima facie case existed and the a…
13 Nov 2025

LITA NASYITAH GOH BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) ROSLAN BIN A. GHAFFAR 2. ) BIMBINGAN GALAKAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-278-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-278-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the March 2016 GUH Holdings Berhad arm's length transaction (1,166,667 shares for RM11,000,000) as the appropriate market benchmark, derived a per share value of RM9.43 and assessed the 50,000 shares at RM471,500; the 1st Defendant breached the trust and is liable to pay equitable compensation (general damages) for failure to restore the trust property; the court awarded RM1,000,000 as general damages, interest at 5% p.a. from 26 January 2021 and costs RM20,000.