Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Money laundering (amla s.4(1)(b))

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on each count: for s.409 the dishonest/curious element was not proven because withdrawals were shown to fund company commitments and recipients confirmed payment; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the accused because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no direct evidence linking accused to forgery; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and accused's knowledge/suspicion. Consequently the court was not prepared to convict on the totality of pro…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-109-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-109-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

After maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence at close of case, court found prosecution proved agency and signatory control but failed to prove dishonesty/misappropriation (third element) for s.409, failed to prove checks were forged or that accused forged signatures for s.468, and failed to prove predicate offences and accused's knowledge/suspicion required for AMLA s.4(1)(b); accordingly 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-102-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-102-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case across all counts: for s.409 the required dishonest intent (third element) was not proved as withdrawals were shown to be for company payments; for s.468 prosecution did not prove cheques were forged by accused (expert evidence inconsistent and no direct attribution) and bank acceptance undermined forgery inference; for AMLA prosecution failed to prove proceeds derived from proved predicate offence and failed to prove accused had knowledge or reasonable suspicion; therefore accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defenc…
25 Jun 2025

SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN

Citation

W-05(SH)-557-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-557-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed: convictions unsafe because prosecution failed to prove prima facie offences. Withdrawal alone did not satisfy any actus reus limb of criminal breach of trust (s.405) and thus abetment based on misappropriation was groundless; RM120,000 fundraising proceeds were shown to be for appellant’s campaign or held on his behalf (no proof of property belonging to another) so s.403 and predicate for AMLA were not established; trial judge committed material misdirection by failing to consider defence evidence and submissions as required by s.182A CPC and by relying on irrelevant/hearsay m…

Malaysia Case Law

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

SYED SADDIQ BIN SYED ABDUL RAHMAN