Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cheating (s.420 penal code)

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2026

POOBALAN A/L RAJAH

Citation

WA-41S-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the conviction because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of attempted cheating: the appellant submitted medical and claim documents that induced the insurer to process a claim despite material inconsistencies in CT scan evidence and related conduct indicating dishonest intention; the defence was a bare and inconsistent denial that failed to raise reasonable doubt; the magistrate's assessment of evidence and sentence was not perverse or manifestly wrong.
9 Jul 2025

PANG SZE YUN [ ]

Citation

DA-43-8-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-43-8-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court quashed the conviction and sentence because the framed charge failed to allege the essential ingredients of s.420 Penal Code (cheating), rendering it an offence unknown to law; the defect was fundamental and not curable under ss.156/422 KTJ, and notwithstanding the plea being voluntary and informed, the defective charge caused a miscarriage of justice requiring quashing and discharge.
29 Nov 2024

PRABAH A/P OPAKAN

Citation

AC-83-365-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AC-83-365-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all essential ingredients of s.420 by credible witness testimony corroborated by transaction images and bank statements showing funds were credited to accused's account on inducement that accused would secure PERKESO ILAT pension; defence explanations were inconsistent and unproven and did not raise reasonable doubt, therefore accused convicted on both counts and sentenced.
21 Aug 2023

1. ) LOOI CHONG WEE 2. ) PON LYE KWAN

Citation

WA-62K-159-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-159-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because material doubts remained on whether accused made false representations, knew they were false, acted dishonestly, and whether transfers were made to accused or their accounts; investigation did not establish necessary nexus to satisfy criminal ingredients; therefore accused were discharged at close of prosecution case.
28 Feb 2023

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] MOHD SUHAIZAL BIN MAT SULAIMAN

Citation

BH-82-4-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-82-4-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Cumulative oral testimony (PW3, PW2, PW5, PW4, PW1) and documentary bank records established deception (fake offer letters and representations), dishonest and fraudulent inducement, and delivery/transfer of monies to the accused; accomplice testimony was admissible and credible in light of MACC Act; elements of cheating under s.415 and s.420 proven beyond reasonable doubt, justifying conviction and sentence.
28 Feb 2023

[Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)] MOHD SUHAIZAL BIN MAT SULAIMAN

Citation

BH-82-03-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BH-82-03-02/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused deception by issuing or presenting forged offer letters and other representations which induced PW3 to deliver monies totalling RM700,000; documentary bank records and witness testimony corroborated the money trail to the accused or his agents; MACC Act s.52(2) permits reliance on uncorroborated accomplice evidence where applicable; therefore elements of cheating under s.415 and offence under s.420 were established and conviction on both counts was warranted.
13 Jan 2023

MANIARASAN A/L PATRICK

Citation

AB-83-747-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83-747-12/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The offences were distinct, involved different victims, different facts, different methods and were not parts of a single transaction; therefore sentences should run consecutively. Applying s.282(d) read with s.292(1) CPC the one-year imprisonment for the s.420 offence before this court is to commence upon expiration of the 1 year 6 months imprisonment previously imposed (case AB-83-746-12/2022); whipping is to run consecutively. The aggregate sentence does not offend the totality principle.
28 Jan 2022

NARENDRAN A/L NAGAPPAN

Citation

AA-42K-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the consolidated appeals: the convictions and sentences were unsafe because (a) the 35 charges under s.420 were defective and occasioned a failure of justice where prosecution evidence showed monies were paid to a third party (Ganang Resources) and not exclusively to the appellant, and (b) on maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence the more favourable inference was that the transactions were friendly loans/repayments with documentary evidence of significant repayments (and in some records overpayment), creating reasonable doubt as to cheating; accordingly convict…
28 Jan 2022

NARENDRAN A/L NAGAPPAN

Citation

AA-42K-28-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-28-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Convictions set aside. Primary legal basis: (1) 35 cheating charges under s.420 were defective because the indictment alleged monies were handed to the accused whereas prosecution evidence and led documents showed transfers/payments to a third party (Ganang Resources); this discrepancy occasioned a failure of justice that could not be cured under ss.156/422 CPC; (2) on maximum evaluation of all evidence, contemporaneous documents (FIRs, civil pleadings, bank deposits, cheque records) supported an alternative reasonable inference that the transactions were friendly loans (and in many instances…
28 Jan 2022

NARENDRAN A/L NAGAPPAN

Citation

AA-42K-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeals were allowed because the 35 s.420 charges were materially defective: the charges alleged monies were handed to the appellant but prosecution evidence and documents showed monies were paid to Ganang Resources (a third party), causing a failure of justice that ss.156 and 422 cannot cure; on full evaluation the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the transactions were criminal rather than friendly loans given the contemporaneous police reports, civil pleadings, and bank records showing repayments and overpayments; accordingly convictions and sentences were se…