Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Criminal breach of trust

  • 13 Feb 2026

    TAN HOCK CHUAN

    Citation
    BA-42K-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42K-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Entrustment was established by the respondent's role and control over company affairs, but the prosecution failed to prove dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the monies because the contra arrangement was a business practice in a family-run company, the respondent acted openly and the property was recorded as a company asset; crucial documents were not proved, and absence of board resolutions was not conclusive proof of dishonesty, therefore no prima facie case existed and the acquittal was rightly upheld.

  • 22 Dec 2025

    FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

    Citation
    AC-62K-14-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62K-14-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court found prolonged, repeated breaches of trust over years involving multiple victims and large losses with no restitution and that the offences were not part of a single transaction; mitigation (health, family, guilty plea) did not outweigh aggravating factors. Therefore the court convicted on the nine counts and imposed, for each count, two years' imprisonment, two strokes of the cane, and a RM10,000 fine (six months' default), with imprisonment to run separately (consecutively) for each count.

  • 22 Dec 2025

    FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

    Citation
    AC-62K-15-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62K-15-12/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given prolonged offending over years involving multiple distinct transactions and large aggregate losses to different victims, the court found deterrence and punishment warranted; mitigation was considered but insufficient to merit concurrent or significantly reduced sentences, therefore imposed per‑count custody, caning and fine with imprisonment to run separately for each count.

  • 22 Dec 2025

    FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

    Citation
    AC-62K-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62K-4-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Given the prolonged period of offending (2012–2019), the very large aggregate losses running into millions with victims unrecompensed, the separate transactions and victims across nine counts, and absence of efforts to restitute victims, the court imposed substantive individual sentences for each count: two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine (or six months default) per count; the custodial terms to run consecutively. Health mitigation reduced extent of corporal punishment but did not justify concurrent or wholly lenient sentences.

  • 22 Dec 2025

    FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

    Citation
    AC-62K-6-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    AC-62K-6-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court found that offences occurred over an extended period (2012–2019), involved multiple victims and substantial losses, guilty pleas only partially mitigated culpability, and because the offences were separate transactions against different parties concurrent sentences were not justified; court therefore imposed for each of nine counts 2 years imprisonment, 2 strokes of the cane and RM10,000 fine (six months default), with imprisonment to run separately (consecutively) for each count, reflecting deterrence and denunciation while moderating corporal punishment due to health concerns.

  • 11 Dec 2025

    WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

    Citation
    NA-62K-112-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    NA-62K-112-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the charged offences beyond a prima facie threshold: third element of s.409 (dishonesty) not established; forgery and authorship of signatures on 73 cheques under s.468 not proved with sufficient, consistent expert and direct evidence; AMLA offences failed because predicate offences and knowledge/suspicion elements were not established. Accordingly no prima facie case existed and accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.

  • 3 Nov 2025

    [ ] Faizoull Bin Ahmad

    Citation
    W-09-359-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    W-09-359-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Prosecution failed to establish abetment under section 109 read with section 409 beyond reasonable doubt because the trial judge materially misdirected by conflating abetment with the principal offence and failing to identify the mode of abetment, the prosecution omitted crucial primary evidence (deleted audio recordings) and relied on altered minutes, charges contained material defects, and the defence raised credible evidence of good faith; therefore the conviction was unsafe and was set aside.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    W-05(SH)-555-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    W-05(SH)-555-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court found trial judge erred: withdrawal alone did not satisfy any actus reus of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation; evidence showed withdrawn RM1,000,000 was used for Armada programs and RM120,000 fundraising proceeds were treated as belonging to appellant for campaign purposes; key prosecution witness evidence was inconsistent and possibly tainted; trial judge failed to consider defence and all evidence as required by CPC s.182A; therefore prima facie and substantive proof for s.403 and AMLA offences absent — convictions unsafe and set aside.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    W-05(SH)-555-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    W-05(SH)-555-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court of Appeal held the convictions were unsafe: the trial judge erred in treating withdrawal as tantamount to misappropriation under s.405 Penal Code and in failing to judicially appreciate and consider defence evidence as mandated by s.182A CPC. The prosecution did not prove key ingredients of s.403 (ownership and dishonest conversion) and therefore abetment and AMLA charges (which depend on the predicate offence) were not made out; inconsistencies and possible coercion of witnesses and failure to call material witnesses undermined the prosecution case.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN

    Citation
    W-05(SH)-556-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    W-05(SH)-556-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court allowed appeal and quashed convictions because the trial judge erred: withdrawal of funds did not constitute any established actus reus of criminal breach of trust as charged; Art 24.8 did not clearly proscribe withdrawals; prosecution failed to prove dishonest misappropriation under s.403 and therefore AMLA counts (predicated on s.403) could not stand; material defence evidence and witness inconsistencies (notably PW13) were not properly considered in breach of s.182A CPC, rendering convictions unsafe.