Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Vehicle forfeiture

  • 11 Dec 2025

    CK TIMBER TRANSPORT SDN BHD

    Citation
    NA-87-3538-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    NA-87-3538-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court found the operator committed a serious breach by carrying 61,900 kg excess (113,900 kg vs 52,000 kg allowed); public safety and deterrence require a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence; where the vehicle is the subject matter of an offence under the listed subsections, section 80(4) APAD 2010 mandates forfeiture. Accordingly the fine of RM25,000 and forfeiture to the Director General JPJ are lawful and appropriate despite the guilty plea and mitigation.

  • 20 Nov 2025

    SYN GHEE HENG ENTERPRISE

    Citation
    AH-87-626-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AH-87-626-10/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court accepted the defendant's guilty plea as valid, held that s305 Criminal Procedure Code bars appeal against conviction arising from a guilty plea, exercised sentencing discretion applying mitigation for plea but public interest required deterrent penalty and imposed RM30,000 fine; having found the offence proven and the vehicle RX8025 to be the subject matter of the offence, the court ordered mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD.

  • 25 Aug 2025

    PAUL RESOURCES

    Citation
    AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    AA-87-1762-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Given the proved overload of 108.5% (64,620kg v permitted 31,000kg), the court held the offence was objectively serious; guilty plea and first‑offence status were mitigating but insufficient to outweigh public interest, deterrence and denunciation; the statutory range under s57(3) justified a RM50,000 fine and, having been satisfied of the offence and that the vehicle was the instrument of the offence, the mandatory forfeiture under s80(4) APAD 2010 was ordered.

  • 25 Jun 2025

    DBD TEGUH ENTERPRISE

    Citation
    KA-87-762-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    KA-87-762-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court convicted the defendant for permitting an overloaded vehicle in breach of s57(1)(b)(vi) read with s57(3) APAD 2010; having accepted the prosecution evidence and guilty plea, the court imposed a RM7,000 fine as a proportionate sentence and, because the offence and that the vehicle was the subject matter were proved, ordered mandatory forfeiture of vehicle DBH5304 to the Government under s80(4) APAD 2010.

  • 11 Nov 2024

    USAHA WIRAMAS SDN BHD

    Citation
    CD-87-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CD-87-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court found overloading proven on the evidence and within statutory offence; having weighed public interest, deterrence, and mitigating factors (early plea and first offence), the fine of RM15,000 (12 months imprisonment if unpaid) was lawful and appropriate; the court exercised its statutory discretion under s80(3)-(4) APAD 2010 to release the vehicle to the owner rather than order forfeiture, therefore the prosecution's appeal against release was dismissed.

  • 17 Jan 2024

    YEWAN MAJU ENTERPRISE

    Citation
    WA-87-4519-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    WA-87-4519-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Court found the operator guilty of breaching licence load limits under s57(1)(b)(vi) having carried 74.52% excess load; applying s57(3) and balancing public interest/deterrence with mitigating factors (first offender, early guilty plea, hardship), the court imposed a fine of RM9,000 or 4 months' imprisonment and exercised its discretion under s80 to release the vehicle to the owner rather than order forfeiture.