Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anti-money laundering

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2024

Ooi Chong Seong 1. ) Lim Kean Tin 2. ) MBI INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 3. ) KOLEJ UNIVERSITI LINTON SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the 1st Defendant acted as a nominee for the 2nd Defendant; the SPA, supplemental agreements and 2018 settlement were entered with the object of enabling unlawful deposit-taking and money laundering in breach of FSA s137 and AMLA s4 and are therefore null and void/unenforceable under Contracts Act s24; res judicata did not apply because the earlier suit was settled without final trial determination; civil courts may decide such illegality for contractual voidness; counterclaim dismissed.
26 Apr 2024

AZMI BIN ALANG AHMAD (menyaman untuk dirinya sendiri dan dalam kapasiti perwakilannya untuk dan bagi manfaat keseluruhan kelas orang-orang yang telah mendepositkan wang kepada MGSB Berhad) 1. ) SITI WAKI'AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dal

Citation

WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Defendant's striking‑out application was allowed because the Plaintiff failed to plead a reasonable cause of action against her: there was no causal link between the 1st Defendant's statutory investigative acts and the Plaintiff's alleged loss and no evidence she acted other than in good faith; statutory immunities under Section 87 Central Bank Act 2009 and Section 77 AMLA therefore bar the claim.
1 Apr 2022

1. ) IKEDA MARI 2. ) MIN JONGSOON 3. ) ONISHI GEN 4. ) ZHU HAN JULIE 5. ) SHIMANUKI KIMIKO 6. ) AHN MIRI 7. ) AHN HYOWON 8. ) BAI HONGMEI 9. ) BAI JIANQIANG 10. ) CAI RUIHONG 11. ) CAI XIAOYAN 12. ) CAO JIZHEN 13. ) CAO KEQI 14. ) CAO YANME

Citation

WA-22NCC-326-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-326-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the discretionary test in Order 23 Rule 1(1) ROC and the established factors, the court found the plaintiffs had a bona fide claim and a reasonably strong prima facie case based on pleadings and available evidence (Bank Negara blacklist, news reports, website AP records and related charges); granting security would be oppressive and would stultify the plaintiffs' action, therefore security for costs was refused.
29 Nov 2018

DATUK SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM KERAJAAN MALAYSIA PENCELAH MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH

Citation

W-01(A)-413-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-413-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Leave to intervene was granted because the proposed intervener (MSA) demonstrated a direct legal interest in the subject matter—the affidavit filed in the appeal related squarely to his ad hoc appointment and alleged payments—and his presence was necessary to ensure effective and complete determination of the issues; applications to expunge the affidavit and to cross‑examine the deponent were refused as premature and to be decided at the main appeal.

Malaysia Case Law

Ooi Chong Seong 1. ) Lim Kean Tin 2. ) MBI INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 3. ) KOLEJ UNIVERSITI LINTON SDN BHD

AZMI BIN ALANG AHMAD (menyaman untuk dirinya sendiri dan dalam kapasiti perwakilannya untuk dan bagi manfaat keseluruhan kelas orang-orang yang telah mendepositkan wang kepada MGSB Berhad) 1. ) SITI WAKI'AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dal

1. ) IKEDA MARI 2. ) MIN JONGSOON 3. ) ONISHI GEN 4. ) ZHU HAN JULIE 5. ) SHIMANUKI KIMIKO 6. ) AHN MIRI 7. ) AHN HYOWON 8. ) BAI HONGMEI 9. ) BAI JIANQIANG 10. ) CAI RUIHONG 11. ) CAI XIAOYAN 12. ) CAO JIZHEN 13. ) CAO KEQI 14. ) CAO YANME

DATUK SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM KERAJAAN MALAYSIA PENCELAH MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH