Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forgery for purpose of cheating (s.468)

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-104-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-104-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all charges. While the accused was shown to be an authorised agent with control over company accounts (elements one and two of s.409), the prosecution did not prove dishonesty or misappropriation. The forgery allegations failed because expert evidence was contradictory and did not prove accused forged signatures or that cheques were forged in a manner attributable to him. The AMLA counts failed because predicate offences were not established as proceeds of unlawful activity and there was insufficient evidence that the accused knew or h…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-95-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on each count: for s.409 the dishonest/curious element was not proven because withdrawals were shown to fund company commitments and recipients confirmed payment; for s.468 prosecution failed to prove the cheques were forged by the accused because handwriting expert evidence was internally inconsistent and there was no direct evidence linking accused to forgery; for AMLA s.4(1)(b) prosecution failed to prove predicate unlawful proceeds and accused's knowledge/suspicion. Consequently the court was not prepared to convict on the totality of pro…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-109-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-109-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

After maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence at close of case, court found prosecution proved agency and signatory control but failed to prove dishonesty/misappropriation (third element) for s.409, failed to prove checks were forged or that accused forged signatures for s.468, and failed to prove predicate offences and accused's knowledge/suspicion required for AMLA s.4(1)(b); accordingly no prima facie case existed and accused was discharged without being called to enter defence.
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-107-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-107-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove all essential elements of the charged offences. Although agency and control of company funds by the accused were established, dishonesty necessary for criminal breach of trust under s.409 was not proven. Forgery under s.468 failed because the prosecution's handwriting/expert evidence was contradictory and did not prove the accused forged the 73 cheques, and there was evidence transactions were authorized company payments. Consequently predicate offences for AMLA were not established and the requisite knowledge/reasonable suspicion under s.4(1)(b) was not proven…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-90-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-90-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on all charges: although accused was shown to be an agent and authorised signatory, prosecution did not prove dishonesty or misappropriation (s.409); did not prove that the 73 cheques were forged by the accused or were in fact forged such that accused intended cheating (s.468) because expert handwriting evidence was inconsistent and no direct link to accused was established; and predicate offences/proceeds linkage and mens rea for AMLA offences were not proven (s.4(1)(b) Act 613). Accordingly accused was discharged and acquitted at close of p…
11 Dec 2025

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

Citation

NA-62K-102-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-62K-102-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case across all counts: for s.409 the required dishonest intent (third element) was not proved as withdrawals were shown to be for company payments; for s.468 prosecution did not prove cheques were forged by accused (expert evidence inconsistent and no direct attribution) and bank acceptance undermined forgery inference; for AMLA prosecution failed to prove proceeds derived from proved predicate offence and failed to prove accused had knowledge or reasonable suspicion; therefore accused discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defenc…

Malaysia Case Law

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG

WONG TZE WEI @ JAMES WONG