Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Criminal breach of trust (s409 penal code)

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-103-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-103-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish prima facie cases on all charges because essential elements were not proven: for s409 the requisite dishonest misappropriation was not shown; for s468 the prosecution failed to prove both that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused and the requisite intent to cheat; for s4(1)(b) AMLA the predicate unlawful origin and the accused's knowledge/suspicion were not established. Consequently the accused was discharged without being called to answer.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI

Citation

NA-62K-7-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-7-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found prosecution proved that accused was an agent and had control over company accounts (s409) but failed to prove dishonest misappropriation; prosecution failed to establish that 73 cheques were forged by accused because handwriting expert evidence was inconsistent and did not tie the accused to forgery (s468); prosecution therefore failed to establish predicate offences or the requisite knowledge/suspicion for AMLA counts (s4(1)(b) Akta 613). On the s180 prima facie test the court was not prepared to convict if accused remained silent and discharged and acquitted the accused at the c…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found prosecution proved agency and control elements for s409 but failed to prove dishonesty/curang element; prosecution failed to prove cheques were forged by accused or that accused had requisite dishonest intent under s468; prosecution failed to prove predicate offences and knowledge/suspicion required for AMLA. Therefore no prima facie case existed on any charge and accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-108-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-108-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although the defendant was an authorised agent/signatory (elements 1 and 2 for s409 satisfied), prosecution failed to prove dishonest misuse of funds (element 3) under s409; prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the defendant or were demonstrably counterfeit (elements for s468 not proven); and AMLA offences failed because predicate offences were not established and there was no proof the defendant knew or had reasonable suspicion funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. Accordingly the accused was discharg…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although accused was shown to be an authorized signatory and to control accounts, there was no reliable evidence of dishonest appropriation (s409), no convincing proof that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that they were issued for the purpose of cheating (s468), and the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or suspicion required under AMLA s4(1)(b) were not proved; expert signature evidence was internally inconsistent and material witnesses confirmed payments benefitted the company or were made on management i…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-117-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-117-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved that the accused was an authorised agent and controlled company accounts (elements one and two of s409) but failed to prove dishonest misappropriation; prosecution failed to prove forgery and that the accused forged signatures on 73 cheques under s468; prosecution likewise failed to prove predicate offences and requisite knowledge for AMLA s4(1)(b). On the totality of the prosecution evidence and applying the s180/Looi Kow Chai test, no prima facie case existed; therefore the accused must be discharged and acquitted without being called to enter a defence.
6 Mar 2024

MOHD ISA BIN ABDUL SAMAD [ ]

Citation

W-05(SH)-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Convictions on nine counts under s16(a)(A) MACCA were unsafe and set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the essential allegation as charged (that gratification was a reward for appellant assisting to obtain FICSB approval). The prosecution materially shifted its narrative at trial toward an inducement to prevent interference, creating variance with the particulars of the charges and prejudicing the defence; the trial judge misapplied s50(1) MACCA and drew inferences unsupported by credible evidence (notably inconsistent testimony of SP21 and absence of evidence that appellant direc…
28 Jan 2022

RAMLAH BEGUM BINTI MOHAMED IBRAHIM

Citation

WA-62K-37-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-37-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, as solicitor/agent, was entrusted with RM525,538.80 via three cheques and dishonestly retained/misappropriated those funds; documentary and bank evidence admissible and credible; defence evidence was afterthought, not credible and failed to raise reasonable doubt; therefore conviction under s409 Penal Code upheld and appropriate sentence imposed (8 years imprisonment and RM50,000 fine).
29 Sept 2020

ABUL HASAN BIN MOHAMED RASHID PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

42-143-09/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

42-143-09/2011 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try offences committed in Johor Bahru because the local limits for Sessions Courts remain as set by L.N.421/1955 and section 121 CPC establishes locality of crime; the venue error was a substantive jurisdictional defect (not a mere irregularity) and rendered the Sessions Court proceedings a nullity; accordingly the conviction and sentence were quashed and any decision on retrial is for the Public Prosecutor under constitutional and statutory remit.