Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlicensed moneylending

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2026

RADAKRISHNAN A/L HARIKRISHNASAMY KHOO LYE TEONG

Citation

WA-A72NCC-58921-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-58921-12/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Documentary evidence demonstrated that the payments and deductions indicated interest and penal charges; the plaintiff failed to prove the asserted RM188,500 advance and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s10OA that he was carrying on moneylending; consequently the loan transactions were unlawful and void and the plaintiff cannot recover under them, so the claim fails.
5 Jun 2025

LU GIR KUANG 1. ) LLC DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) LING THOR YUEN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-71-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Investment Agreement was a sham and in substance a RM3.5 million loan bearing exorbitant interest; Ng failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s10OA that he was carrying on moneylending business, rendering the Investment Agreement void for illegality; because the Service Agreement was executed as part of the same illegal scheme it is tainted by illegality and unenforceable; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for RM2.15 million is dismissed and no order as to costs is made.
18 Apr 2025

CHEOW HOCK KEE CHAN YOK LIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-131-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-131-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the written loan agreement of 28.01.2019 and the sale and purchase dated 17.04.2018 are genuine and binding; defendant received RM200,000 and repaid RM40,000, leaving RM160,000 outstanding; plaintiff is not an unlicensed moneylender; defendant's counterclaim alleging sham sale and unlicensed lending fails; judgment for plaintiff for RM160,000 plus 5% p.a. from date of judgment and costs awarded to plaintiff.
21 Mar 2025

ZHONG E SDN BHD 1. ) FLOWCRETE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) THEN LIAT NYAP 3. ) NG LEONG MUNG 4. ) CHAW FONG TENG 5. ) HENG FOOK CHOON

Citation

BA-22NCvC-430-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-430-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the transactions were sham paper trades disguising loans: defence produced cogent money‑trail evidence, documentary anomalies and implausible commercial practices which plaintiff failed to rebut. The Plaintiff thereby acted as an unlicensed moneylender; under Moneylenders Act 1951 s15 and Contracts Act 1950 s24 the underlying lending transactions are void and any security or guarantee given to secure those illegal transactions (including the Supplemental Guarantee executed by the 4th and 5th Defendants) is void and unenforceable. The Plaintiff's claim against the 4th and 5th D…
8 Nov 2024

RAJA KUMAR A/L PERUMALU ZAIRITA AZLIN BTE MOHD RAJILI

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-936-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-936-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved delivery of RM150,000 to Defendant by documentary evidence and Defendant's admissions; Defendant failed to rebut or prove illegal moneylending or that he retained title to the vehicle; the surat akuan is valid and constitutes an admission; Plaintiff entitled to repayment of RM150,000, interest at 5% from judgment and costs, and Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
17 Sept 2024

THARMALINGAM A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) KOKULA BALAN A/L EHAMBARAM 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 10OA presumption was properly raised because the agreement imposed monthly payments in excess of the principal; the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he was carrying on the business of moneylending; therefore the loan arrangement was part of unlicensed moneylending and unenforceable, and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Jun 2024

WAN LOY CHYE 1. ) CHUA AH SANG 2. ) CHIA YIK FENG

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-19-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-19-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The SPA was held to be a sham that masked an unlicensed moneylending transaction; therefore the agreement is void and unenforceable under Moneylenders Act 1951 and Contracts Act 1950; plaintiff, being an unlicensed moneylender, is not entitled to restitution of the deposit or agreed damages; further the suit is barred by cause of action estoppel because identical issues and reliefs were finally determined by the High Court — accordingly plaintiff's action is dismissed and defendants' counterclaim for declaration of abuse of process is allowed.
31 May 2024

AJ KASTURI SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI 3. ) NG SEE HUA 4. ) LEE PENG KOON 5. ) LEE LEONG HUAT 6. ) NG SOON TEAM 7. ) TEH HOCK CHUN 8. ) KHOO SAY POOW 9. ) EI KIAN SEONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-494-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-494-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiffs failed to prove the 16 transactions were sham moneylending arrangements; key allegations relied on criminal provisions and professional disciplinary provisions not enforceable by civil declarations; documentary and conduct evidence established existence of valid Options to Purchase and genuine sale transactions; adverse inference for failure to call material witnesses did not alter outcome; therefore plaintiffs' claims dismissed and purchasers' counterclaims allowed with costs and interest.
29 Apr 2024

AMIT CHHABRA A/L ASHOK KUMAR CHHABRA 1. ) ANURADHA A/P KODIVAL @ KODIVEL 2. ) RAVENA RAJ KUMAR 3. ) MYTHRINA RAJ KUMAR 4. ) TETUAN A.G. ROSELI & PAUL

Citation

BL-22NCvC-12-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-12-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the SPA dated 5.8.2019 was a sham and/or has been declared null, void and unenforceable; the Plaintiff in substance acted as an unlicensed moneylender charging unlawful interest; accordingly Defendant 1 is entitled to vacant possession, refund of unlawful interest differential (RM17,600), recovery of outstanding rental loss (RM82,800 and ongoing), injunction against harassment, aggravated damages (RM50,000) and costs (RM30,000); Defendant 4 was not liable for Plaintiff's primary claims but succeeded on its counterclaim and was awarded exemplary damages (RM50,00…
30 Aug 2023

IWEALTH CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 1. ) LKW PETROLEUM SDN BHD 2. ) Lee Kok Wai

Citation

BL-12ANCC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12ANCC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's decision refusing to set aside the third party notices; the appeal was dismissed because the record disclosed no basis to disturb that decision, the additional affidavits relied upon were improperly included and the factual disputes (nature of the RM30,000 payment) required trial evidence rather than determination on affidavits; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.