Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 408 penal code

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2023

SHAKIRAH BINTI AMIR HAMZAH @ ABD RAHMAN

Citation

WA-62K-9-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-9-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendant, as entrusted accounts officer, dishonestly diverted RM84,000 by causing hotel payments to be made to another company using forged change-of-payee letters; defendant either knew or was wilfully blind to the documents' falsity; therefore convicted under s.408, s.471 and s.465 and sentenced within statutory ranges accounting for seriousness and mitigation.
18 Apr 2023

MOHD NOORZAIDI BIN AYUB

Citation

KA-42K-3-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-42K-3-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the four offences were distinct (different transaction dates and different victim accounts), the trial judge lawfully exercised discretion under s.282(d) and s.102 to order consecutive sentences, and the aggregate sentence of 8 years 7 months with four strokes did not breach the totality principle; accordingly the appeals against sentence were dismissed.
18 Apr 2023

MOHD NOORZAIDI BIN AYUB

Citation

KA-42K-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-42K-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court held the Sessions Court did not err: the four offences were distinct (different transaction dates, different accounts/victims), the trial judge validly exercised discretion under s282 CPC to order consecutive sentences, and the aggregate sentence of 8 years 7 months did not offend the totality principle given statutory sentencing range for s408; appeal dismissed.
3 Feb 2023

CHOONG THIM KHAN

Citation

AA-62K-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-62K-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of section 408: it did not prove the accused was a clerk or servant of the company, was entrusted with the cheques or had dominion over them, nor did it prove dishonest disposal or authorship of signatures; consequently no prima facie case existed to require the accused to enter defence.
3 Aug 2022

OSMADI BIN SAIFUL BAHRIN

Citation

WA-62K-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-62K-51-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was a clerk/employee entrusted with company funds and had control via shared passwords; bank records and accused's own signed admissions showed RM126,364.25 was transferred from the company account to his personal account, constituting dishonest misappropriation under s.408 Penal Code. Defence was a recent invention and failed to raise reasonable doubt. Conviction under s.408 and sentence were appropriate and lawful.
8 Jul 2022

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

Citation

AA-42LB-11-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42LB-11-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the prosecution had legitimate, articulable reasons (need to obtain evidence from LAZADA and telecoms) and had expressed clear intent to recommence prosecution after further investigations. Delays were attributable to COVID-19 restrictions and judicial reassignments rather than solely to the prosecution. These constituted 'good grounds' for a DNAA under s.254 CPC. Therefore the trial judge erred in granting an acquittal and discharge; the appropriate order is DNAA for the 34 charges.

Malaysia Case Law

SHAKIRAH BINTI AMIR HAMZAH @ ABD RAHMAN

MOHD NOORZAIDI BIN AYUB

MOHD NOORZAIDI BIN AYUB

CHOONG THIM KHAN

OSMADI BIN SAIFUL BAHRIN

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN