Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Criminal breach of trust (section 409 penal code)

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-111-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-111-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the charged offences: it did not prove dishonest conversion under s.409, did not establish that the 73 checks were forged by the accused nor that they were shown to be forged with sufficient certainty under s.468, and failed to prove the proceeds were from predicate offences or that the accused had knowledge/reasonable suspicion under AMLA s.4(1)(b). Accordingly no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter his defence.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-116-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-116-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to establish a prima facie case on all counts: although the prosecution proved that the accused was an agent and had control over accounts (s.409 elements one and two), it failed to prove dishonest criminal breach of trust; the prosecution failed to prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or that he intended to cheat (s.468); and the AMLA counts failed because the predicate offences were not proven to produce the proceeds and there was no proof the accused knew or had reasonable suspicion the funds were proceeds of unl…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-105-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-105-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish the essential dishonest/forgery/money‑laundering elements beyond a prima facie threshold. Although the accused was proved to have been an agent and had control over accounts, there was no reliable proof that he dishonestly misapplied funds, that he forged SP3's signature on the 73 checks, or that the funds derived from proved predicate offences. Expert handwriting evidence was internally inconsistent and did not identify the accused as forger; company processes, approvals and clerk testimony explained cheque preparation and payments for company benefit. Consequ…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-119-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-119-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish the essential dishonest/mens rea element for s.409 (no evidence accused used funds for personal benefit or acted dishonestly); failed to prove forgery under s.468 because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no proof accused forged signatures (bank processed cheques and clerk SP16 prepared documents); failed to prove AMLA charges because predicate offences were not established and there was no proof accused knew or had reasonable suspicion funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. Consequently no prima facie case existed and acc…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI

Citation

NA-62K-5-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-5-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements across charges: for s409 the dishonest/misappropriation element was not established because payments benefitted the company and were authorised by management; for s468 forgery and identification of the forger were not proven given contradictions and insufficiency in expert handwriting evidence and absence of proof defendant forged signatures; for AMLA the predicate offences were not established and there was no proof defendant knew or suspected proceeds were unlawful. Therefore no prima facie case existed and accused must be discharged.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-92-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-92-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of all charges: for s409 the required dishonest misapplication was not established; for s468 forgery and the accused's role in forging signatures were not proven (expert evidence inconsistent and no direct evidence accused forged signatures); for AMLA the predicate offences and accused's knowledge or reasonable suspicion were not proven; consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused was discharged and acquitted at close of prosecution.
23 Nov 2023

Suhana Binti Samad [ ]

Citation

BA-42(R)(A)-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

BA-42(R)(A)-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and supported by contemporaneous MyIMMS logs, documentary evidence (official and forged receipts), witness testimony and sampling showing a pattern of improper 'gratis' approvals; these established entrustment (including indirect entrustment) and dishonest misappropriation and common intention under s.34, and absence of CCTV or signature expert did not render the prosecution case unsafe; accordingly convictions and sentences under s.409 (read with s.34) were affirmed.
23 Aug 2022

Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [ ]

Citation

05(L)-289-12/2021(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-289-12/2021(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court affirmed convictions because the High Court's and Court of Appeal's concurrent findings were supported by the evidence, the defence was inconsistent and failed to raise reasonable doubt, and the court was entitled to proceed despite appellant's counsel refusing to make submissions under its inherent jurisdiction and s313 CPC.
2 Nov 2021

NOR BADLI MUNAWIR BIN MOHAMAD ALIAS LAFTI [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

Citation

WA-42R-10-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42R-10-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's findings that (1) the appellant, as authorized signatory/CEO, was entrusted with company funds and directed payments without invoices; (2) cheques were encashed and cash delivered to the appellant; and (3) the primary facts of misappropriation were proved, justified invoking the rebuttable presumption under section 409B(1)(b)(i) which the appellant failed to rebut on balance of probabilities; those facts also established the monies as proceeds of the predicate offence and satisfied the elements of money laundering; convictions on CBT and money laundering are safe though s…
27 Apr 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KELVIN TONG TENG HOE

Citation

WA-42K-1-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42K-1-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of s.409: the respondent was not shown to be an agent entrusted with Faigam Tuning PLT's property, there was evidence of the owner's knowledge/consent to the sale, the prosecution did not prove receipt of RM411,370 by the respondent (relevant bank documents were not admitted as primary evidence), and the date/place of alleged offence was not established; thus no criminal breach of trust was made out and the acquittal stands.