Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Criminal breach of trust (s.409 penal code)

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-99-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-99-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all charges. For s.409 prosecution proved agency and control over funds but failed to prove dishonest intention to appropriate funds. For s.468 prosecution failed to prove the 73 cheques were forged by the accused because expert evidence was inconsistent and there was no direct proof the accused forged signatures; bank processing and evidence showed funds were used to pay contractors. For s.4(1)(b) AMLA the predicate offences were not proved and there was insufficient proof the accused knew or had reasonable suspicion funds were procee…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-101-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-101-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case on all charges: although the prosecution established that the accused was an agent/authorised signatory and had control over company accounts (s.409 element of agency and dominion), it failed to prove dishonest criminal breach of trust; the prosecution failed to prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that accused used forged documents with intent to cheat (s.468); and AMLA offences under s.4(1)(b) failed because predicate offences were not established and there was insufficient evidence that the accused kn…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI

Citation

NA-62K-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of the charged offences: although accused was shown to be an authorised signatory and manager (s.409 element 1 & 2), there was no convincing evidence of dishonest misappropriation; handwriting expert evidence was inconsistent and did not prove accused forged SP3's signatures (s.468 elements 1–2 unresolved); consequently predicate offences for AMLA and knowledge/suspicion elements under s.4(1)(b) were not proved. On maximum evaluation of prosecution case the court was not prepared to convict; prima facie case not made out and accused discharge…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-113-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish essential elements across all charges: for s.409 the prosecution could not prove dishonest appropriation (element of fraud); for s.468 the handwriting expert's evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no proof accused forged the signatures or that the cheques were issued to defraud; for s.4(1)(b) AMLA the predicate offences were not established and the accused lacked the requisite knowledge or reasonable suspicion. Consequently no prima facie case existed and accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-118-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-118-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: for s.409 the element of dishonest misappropriation (intent/curang) was not proven; for s.468 prosecution did not prove the cheques were forged by the accused or that the forged documents were used to cheat (handwriting expert evidence was contradictory and no direct evidence that accused forged signatures); for s.4(1)(b) AMLA prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and the accused's knowledge or reasonable suspicion. On that basis the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent and discharg…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-93-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-93-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offences at the close of its case—in particular the element of fraudulent/dishonest misuse (s.409), authorship and dishonest use of forged signatures (s.468) and that the funds were proceeds of predicate offences known or suspected by the defendant (s.4(1)(b) AMLA)—and therefore no prima facie case existed; defendant discharged and freed without being called to enter defence.
3 Nov 2023

NOR BADLI MUNAWIR BIN MOHAMAD ALIAS LAFTI [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

Citation

W-09-281-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-281-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held that, on the totality of oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution proved for the remaining contested counts (CBT Nos.1,2,4 and AMLATFA Nos.2,4) that the accused directed payments without supporting claims, funds were withdrawn and delivered to the accused, and the accused's explanations failed to rebut the statutory presumption of dishonesty; alibi succeeded only for CBT No.3 and AMLATFA No.3 and the State conceded CBT No.5/AMLATFA No.5, therefore those convictions were set aside while the others were affirmed given credible corroborated testimony and proper application of la…

Malaysia Case Law

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

NOR BADLI MUNAWIR BIN MOHAMAD ALIAS LAFTI [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]