Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Compensation under s66a atipsom

  • 6 Dec 2024

    1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

    Citation
    BL-62ATIP-63-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BL-62ATIP-63-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of s12 ATIPSOM read with s34: the victims were non‑children and were acquired/retained for labour exploitation; means of exploitation included illegal entry, retention of passports, absence of work permits, confiscation/withholding of wages, confinement and debt bondage; T1 and T2 acted in concert with common intention to traffic and exploit the victims. As a result both accused were convicted on all charges, sentenced to concurrent 5‑year terms with specified fines per victim, and ordered to pay statutory compensatio…

  • 6 Dec 2024

    1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

    Citation
    BL-62ATIP-64-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BL-62ATIP-64-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the evidence the court found all statutory elements of trafficking proved: victims were acquired/retained and exploited for forced labour, deprived of documents, worked without permits, subjected to debt bondage and threats; T1 and T2 acted jointly with common intention to exploit and profit. Consent was immaterial. Accordingly both defendants were convicted under s12 ATIPSOM read with s34 Penal Code and compensation ordered under s66A ATIPSOM read with KPJ provisions.

  • 12 Nov 2021

    1. ) WONG CHEE KONG 2. ) LAM CHAI YIN PENDAKWARAYA

    Citation
    BA-42S-46-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42S-46-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the prosecution had established a prima facie case of trafficking for the purpose of exploitation/forced labour under Section 12 ATIPSOM based on cumulative evidence (withheld wages recharacterised as loans, passport retention, excessive hours, denial of leave, restricted communication and physical abuse); the trial judge properly assessed the defence and there was no legal or factual error warranting disturbance of the convictions or sentences, so convictions and sentences were affirmed.