Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cheating (section 420)

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

LOH YEE CHUAN

Citation

PB-83-835-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PB-83-835-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of cheating on a maximum evaluation: documentary evidence (personal loan agreement, notice of demand), inconsistent narratives about which transaction related to the fund management agreement, partial repayments and correspondence indicating loans, investigative gaps and failure to call material witnesses meant deception, inducement and dishonest intent were not established beyond the prima facie threshold; therefore it was unsafe to call the accused to defend and the accused was discharged and acquitted at the close of the prosecution.
16 May 2024

TEOH SOO BENG

Citation

WA-62K-194-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-194-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie criminal case: no evidence of deception or inducement sufficient to amount to cheating (disputed amount and SPM's knowledge that properties were unenforceable), material misdescription of the loan amount in the charge, and the facts pointed to a civil/contractual dispute possibly involving illegal/void agreements; accordingly accused was acquitted and discharged without being called to enter defence.
20 Dec 2021

Kavitha A/p Kalidasan [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

WA-41S-39-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-39-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The evidence established the accused represented she could secure large business loans and induced the complainants to pay RM33,000 in processing fees though no loan applications were ever made; the accused's explanation that fees were for a bank officer was unproven and inconsistent, police reports were not probative as evidence in trial, defence did not raise reasonable doubt, and therefore convictions under section 420 and the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were safe to be affirmed.
1 Mar 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya TEO CHEE LOONG

Citation

JA-83-5633-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-5633-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved a prima facie case and thereafter proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: the accused induced the complainant to hand over RM36,600 by false representations about ROGP investments, acted dishonestly by absconding and not creating any investment account for the complainant, and the accused's sworn testimony and documents failed to raise reasonable doubt; accordingly convicted under Section 420 and sentenced considering public interest and retribution.
15 Oct 2020

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-41H-34-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41H-34-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Each fraudulent transaction involved separate acts of deception causing separate losses to victims on different dates and places; therefore the one transaction rule did not apply and consecutive sentences were appropriate; however the court exercised sentencing discretion to reduce each term from three years to two years in recognition of mitigation (early guilty plea and other factors) while maintaining corporal punishment and ordering restitution under Section 426 CPC.
9 Jan 2020

PENDAKWARAYA SYED SHAKIR ALJUNID BIN SYED ALWI ALJUNID

Citation

FA-83-72-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

FA-83-72-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

After assessing all evidence and credibility, the court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused dishonestly induced payment by false promise of immigration approvals, the defence was unconvincing and uncorroborated, and thus the accused was guilty of cheating under Section 420.
26 Sept 2019

1. SAHARUDDIN BIN AWANG YAHYA 2. NORZIHAN BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN

Citation

WA-42K-13-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-13-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Convictions were unsafe because the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of deception as charged: the evidence established the alleged titles derived from PKDRK (a private society) not from the State of Kelantan as alleged in the indictments, many victims acknowledged the PKDRK provenance or attributed payments to charitable donations or to intermediaries, and the trial judge failed to properly assess victims' testimony; accordingly convictions and sentences were set aside and appellants acquitted.

Malaysia Case Law

LOH YEE CHUAN

TEOH SOO BENG

Kavitha A/p Kalidasan [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

PENDAKWARAYA Pendakwaraya TEO CHEE LOONG

ZAINAL BIN JIDON (NO. KP : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

PENDAKWARAYA SYED SHAKIR ALJUNID BIN SYED ALWI ALJUNID

1. SAHARUDDIN BIN AWANG YAHYA 2. NORZIHAN BINTI ZAINAL ABIDIN