Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Compensation under s66a

  • 6 Dec 2024

    1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

    Citation
    BL-62ATIP-66-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BL-62ATIP-66-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendants jointly trafficked the Cambodian victims for labour exploitation: victims were smuggled, had passports retained, worked without permits, lived in degraded collective accommodation, endured excessive hours, wage deductions and debt bondage, and were subject to threats and physical restraint; coercion and exploitation elements under s2 and s12 ATIPSOM were satisfied and common intention established under s34; defendants convicted and sentenced and ordered to pay statutory compensation under s66A read with relevant pr…

  • 6 Dec 2024

    1. ) ITH EAMY 2. ) DIONG YEOU CHIN

    Citation
    BL-62ATIP-67-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BL-62ATIP-67-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The prosecution proved all essential ingredients of s.12 Act 670 beyond reasonable doubt: acquisition and retention of victims for labour exploitation via deception and illegal entry, retention of passports, coercive debt bondage, confinement and threats; evidence established joint intention by T1 and T2. Accordingly both defendants were convicted on all charges and sentenced; compensation under s.66A was appropriate and quantified by the Court.

  • 6 Apr 2022

    MABEL AMEN MONYE

    Citation
    BL-42S-6-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-42S-6-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appellate court found no legal or factual error in the trial judge's assessment: the prosecution proved the elements of trafficking under Section 12 ATIPSOM beyond reasonable doubt by credible victim testimony corroborated by independent police and medical evidence and contemporaneous police report; absence of physical/forensic exhibits did not render the prosecution case unsustainable; consequently conviction and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and RM5,000 compensation under Section 66A were lawful and proportionate and were therefore upheld.