Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cheating under section 420 penal code

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

LOH YEE CHUAN

Citation

PB-83-834-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PB-83-834-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of Section 420: documentary and oral evidence (notably the Personal Loan Agreement, remittance form entries, chat transcripts and Notice of Demand) supported an inference of loan/borrowing rather than deception and inducement; subsequent partial repayments, emails promising repayment, investigative gaps and absence of material witnesses meant the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent; therefore no prima facie case and accused must be discharged and acquitted.
4 Jan 2024

1. ) JJ Power Groups Enterprise 2. ) JJ Global Network Holdings Berhad 3. ) JJ Global Network 4. ) Utopia Entertainment Sdn Bhd 5. ) PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd 6. ) L&L Property Ventures Sdn Bhd 7. ) JJ Global Recipe Sdn Bhd 8. ) Penang Old Wo

Citation

05(L)-153-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-153-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

In forfeiture proceedings under section 56 AMLA 2001 where no prosecution or conviction for money laundering or terrorism financing exists, all questions of fact including whether property constitutes proceeds of an unlawful activity (predicate/serious offence) are to be determined on the balance of probabilities pursuant to sections 56(4) and 70(1); section 70(2) does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of predicate offences in such forfeiture proceedings. The High Court's factual findings that the JJPTR scheme involved deceit, constituted unlicensed/illegal deposit taking and that the…
7 Aug 2023

AW YU HUI

Citation

WA-41S-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41S-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 172G CPC entitles an accused who pleads guilty before trial to sentencing not exceeding half the statutory maximum; subsection 172D(2) on minimum terms is inapplicable absent a plea bargaining disposition under s172C; therefore reducing the s420 term to 3 months was lawful and not prohibited by the statutory minimum; the magistrate's original sentences were manifestly excessive and were properly reduced; the sentences are to run consecutively from date of arrest and the whipping order and fines remain unaffected.
10 May 2023

MARIAM BEEVI BINTI M. SULTAN ALAUDIN

Citation

WA-83-650-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83-650-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to produce primary documents (original passports) or admissible secondary evidence linking visa numbers in P2 to originals; P2 is only a summary prepared by PW1 and lacks independent verification; PW1 was inconsistent and uncorroborated; therefore prosecution did not prove the essential element of deception beyond reasonable doubt and failed to establish a prima facie case under s420, warranting acquittal at close of prosecution.
10 Nov 2022

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] Marina binti Alias

Citation

TA-83-41-02/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-41-02/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of section 420: RM69,260 was delivered, delivery was induced by defendant through false representations about price and agency (supported by WhatsApp messages and testimony), defendant acted dishonestly causing loss to SP4, and defendant's contrary explanations and claim of coercion were not substantiated; accordingly defendant was convicted under section 420 Penal Code and sentenced to two years imprisonment from 10 November 2022 with whipping exempted under section 289(a) Criminal Procedure Code.
28 Jan 2022

NARENDRAN A/L NAGAPPAN

Citation

AA-42K-27-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-27-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because (1) the 35 charges under section 420 were defective and occasioned a failure of justice where prosecution evidence and official records showed monies were paid into Ganang Resources (a third party) rather than solely to the appellant, meaning the appellant was misled by the charge formulation and sections 156/422 CPC did not cure the defect; and (2) a maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence showed an alternative, reasonable inference that the transactions were friendly loans (admitted in civil pleadings and supported by bank payment evidence and repayments) rather th…
28 Jan 2022

NARENDRAN A/L NAGAPPAN

Citation

AA-42K-5-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-5-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Convictions were unsafe: the section 420 charges were defective because the prosecution evidence showed monies were deposited to Ganang Resources (a third party) and not exclusively to the appellant, causing a failure of justice under CPC ss.156 and 422; further, maximum evaluation of the documentary and bank evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the transactions were friendly loans with substantial repayments recorded, creating reasonable doubt as to dishonest inducement; appeals allowed and convictions and sentences set aside.
28 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA MOHD LIZA AZMIE BIN MD DARUS

Citation

NA-62K-01-01/2016; NA-62K-02-01/2016; NA-62K-03-01/2016; NA-62K-04-01/2016 & NA-62K-05-01/2016 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-01-01/2016; NA-62K-02-01/2016; NA-62K-03-01/2016; NA-62K-04-01/2016 & NA-62K-05-01/2016 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of section 420 beyond reasonable doubt because (1) material inconsistencies existed in witness accounts about whether defendant represented himself as agent, where and to whom cash was handed, and timing of transactions; (2) several bank deposits bore non-investment descriptions or were into accounts of Aboy, undermining allegation that payments were investments into Seputeh Resources and that defendant received them; (3) critical seized ledger books were not produced to defence and thus the evidential trail was incomplete; and (4) recordings…
4 Dec 2019

RITA MAZIHA BINTI PAUZI

Citation

WA-42S-30-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42S-30-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held prosecution did not establish a prima facie case on cheating: the evidence did not prove the full RM80,000 was delivered as a result of deception nor that Temasik Maju Enterprise did not receive the alleged RM2,000,000 loan; the trial judge misappreciated evidence and should not have called the accused to enter her defence, therefore conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused acquitted and discharged.