Back to Top

Issue #25/2020
11 June 2020

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

KANG JUNTAO v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ANOR [2020] 5 CLJ 368
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH JC
[CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: WA-44-191-08-2019]
16 MARCH 2020

1. Any arrangement made between Malaysia and any country for the extradition of fugitive criminals may be made under the Extradition Act 1992 ('Act') if the order of the Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister'), pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, is published in the Gazette. The Agreement and Exchange of Notes dated 3 August 1995 between Malaysia and the US in respect of the arrangement for the extradition of offenders is published in the Gazette as the Extradition (United States) Order 1997 vide P.U.(A) 213/1997 and came into force on 2 June 1997.

2. In an application made under s. 19 of the Act, the court must consider whether a prima facie case has been made out in support of the requisition of the country concerned before committing a fugitive criminal to prison. This requirement, however, is dispensed with if the application is made under the procedures pursuant to s. 20 of the Act, which require a direction given by the Minister under s. 4 of the Act.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Habeas corpus - Writ - Issuance - Application for immediate release - Applicant, citizen of People's Republic of China, wanted by Government of United States of America ('US Government') for trial - Applicant faced charges relating to laundering, and aiding and abetting laundering, monetary instruments - Applicant arrested by Government of Malaysia following Extradition Treaty entered with US Government - Whether applicant extraditable to US - Sessions Court granted warrant for fugitive criminal to be committed to prison pending issuance of order by Minister of Home Affairs for applicant's surrender - Whether warrant proper and regular - Whether applicant committed any offence within territory of US - Whether offence allegedly committed by applicant had extraterritorial effect under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether there was element of dual-criminality - Whether offence alleged to have been committed had anything to do with Malaysia - Whether there was probable cause - Whether application for writ of habeas corpus ought to be allowed - Whether applicant ought to be released immediately - Extradition Act 1992, ss. 2(1), 12, 13 & 20

CRIMINAL LAW: Extradition - Request made pursuant to Extradition Treaty - Citizen of People's Republic of China wanted by Government of United States of America ('US') for trial - Fugitive criminal faced charges relating to laundering, and aiding and abetting laundering, monetary instruments at US Court - Fugitive criminal arrested by Government of Malaysia following Extradition Treaty entered with US Government - Sessions Court granted warrant for committal to fugitive criminal pending issuance of order by Minister of Home Affairs for fugitive criminal's surrender - Whether warrant proper and regular - Whether court must consider whether prima facie case had been made out in support of requisition of requesting country before committing fugitive criminal to prison - Whether requirement dispensed with if application was made under procedures pursuant to s. 20 of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether there was direction given by Minister of Home Affairs under s. 4 of Extradition Act 1992


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Khee Thuan Giap v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 568 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Khee Thuan Giap [Criminal Trial No: 45A-8-11/2015]

  2. Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. KLK Electronic Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 LNS 522 (CA) overruling the High Court case of KLK Electronic Sdn Bhd v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd & Anor [Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-485-09/2015]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 144

KATHRYN MA WAI FONG v. TMC IMPORTER & EXPORTER SDN BHD

Irreparable damage to reputation, goodwill and credit standing, coupled with calling upon a corporate guarantee as a result of a winding-up order, are special circumstances warranting an interim stay of a winding-up order pending disposal of an appeal against the said winding-up order.

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Stay of order - Application for interim stay pending appeal against winding-up order - Special circumstances - Winding-up order not based on monetary judgment - Respondent company executed corporate guarantee for credit facilities to be called upon due to winding-up order - Whether interim stay ought to be granted - Whether creditworthiness, goodwill and standing of respondent would be irreversibly affected as a result of winding-up order - Whether third parties would be affected by winding up order - Whether winding up court is conferred with jurisdiction and discretion to stay a winding-up order

  • For the petitioner - Alvin Yong & Shirleen Ong; Alvin Yong
  • For the contributories - Stanley Eddy; Battenberg & Talma
  • For the respondent - Sim Hui Chuang; Reddi & Co

[2019] 1 LNS 194

EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD v. PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Execution of judgment requiring a management corporation (MC') to reschedule an annual general meeting within a specified period would cause real prejudice if the MC is duty bound to implement motions passed immediately before disposal of its appeal against the said judgment. An appeal being rendered nugatory is "special circumstances" justifying a stay of execution of judgment.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of execution - Stay pending appeal - Special circumstances - Judgment obtained by proprietor against management corporation ('MC') - Order requiring MC to reschedule annual general meeting ('AGM') within 60 days to enable proprietor to attend to cast vote - Whether MC would be duty bound to implement motions passed immediately if AGM is reconvened - Whether MC would have conducted itself in a manner that would have irreversible consequences - Whether appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay refused - Whether real prejudice will be caused to MC if stay refused

  • For the applicant - Kent Chai Wai Hong; M/s Mah-Kamariah & Philip Koh
  • For the defendant - Aimee SH Liew & Chin Weng Yan; M/s YH Teh & Quek

[2019] 1 LNS 197

PP lwn. NNABUEZE CORNELIUS AGBODIKE

Perbuatan tertuduh yang menggigil semasa ditahan dan mengelakkan dari diimbas menunjukkan tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan pengetahuan berkenaan dadah berbahaya. Tertuduh seharusnya berasa curiga apabila disuruh menelan 66 ketulan kapsul yang didakwa sebagai ubat pemberi tenaga. Justeru, penafian pengetahuan berkenaan kandungan dadah di dalam ketulan kapsul yang ditelannya merupakan satu pembelaan yang tidak munasabah.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat 1,019.3 g - Ketulan kapsul berisi dadah dikeluarkan dari badan tertuduh - Pemilikan - Mens rea - Tertuduh mengelak badannya diimbas di balai ketibaan - Tertuduh menggigil semasa ditahan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan dadah di dalam badannya - Sama ada milikan mens rea telah dibuktikan - Sama ada dadah adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Kes pendakwaan - Pemutusan rantaian keterangan - Pengendalian barang kes - Kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Kegagalan untuk menandakan ketulan kapsul dadah - Sama ada ketulan kapsul dadah merupakan dadah yang sama semasa ia dirampas dan dikemukakan di Mahkamah - Sama ada rantaian keterangan identiti dadah-dadah telah terputus

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Ketulan kapsul dadah dijumpai di dalam badan tertuduh - Tertuduh mendakwa ketulan kapsul diberi sebagai ubat tradisional bagi memberi kecergasan dan menambah tenaga kepada tertuduh untuk bermain bola sepak - Tertuduh mendakwa tidak mengetahui kandungan kapsul yang dimakannya - Tertuduh tidak mengetahui nama kelab bola sepak yang akan disertainya - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah munasabah

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Jayamurugan Vadivelu; T/n Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - Suhana Mohd, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Bahagian Perundangan; Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia

[2019] 1 LNS 198

SAIDIN MOHD NOOR v. NOOR AFIQAH KHAIRAZMY

Failure to call the plaintiff as a witness during trial to support his averments in the statement of claim is detrimental to the presentation of the plaintiff's version of the accident; Merely calling the investigating officer alone is insufficient. That being the case, the defendant's version of the incident is not to be used to determine the apportionment of liability.

ROAD TRAFFIC: Negligence - Road accident - Ascertaining liability - Failure to present case - Plaintiff failed to give evidence during trial - Plaintiff merely called investigating officer to give evidence - Whether non-calling of plaintiff as a witness was detrimental to presentation of plaintiff's version of accident - Whether investigating officer's evidence alone able to support plaintiff's version - Whether plaintiff's version as averred in statement of claim was proven - Whether defendant's version can be used to determine apportionment of liability

DAMAGES: Appeal - Award - Brain injury - Appellate intervention - Trial judge failed to consider latest medical report tendered by defendant which was 6 months later than plaintiff's medical report - Whether appellate court has liberty to interfere with award of trial court for its non-consideration of relevant material

  • For the plaintiff - Muhammad Yazid Mohamad Salim; G Dorai & Co
  • For the defendant - Gauri Mageswari Kanasan; Azim Tunku Farik & Wong

[2019] 1 LNS 225

MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD lwn. MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

Keputusan Menteri Sumber Manusia yang telah memutuskan bahawa jawatan In Flight Supervisor adalah pekerja yang bukan digajikan dalam kapasiti pengurusan, eksekutif, sulit atau keselamatan yang berdasarkan kepada laporan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan yang sempurna adalah munasabah dan tidak wajar dibatalkan melalui permohonan semakan kehakiman.

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiorari - Permohonan certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Menteri Sumber Manusia ('Menteri') yang tidak merujuk representasi berhubung pembuangan kerja ke Mahkamah Perusahaan - Menteri memutuskan In Flight Supervisor adalah pekerja yang bukan digajikan dalam kapasiti pengurusan, eksekutif, sulit atau keselamatan - Sama ada siasatan serta soalselidik telah dijalankan dengan sempurna - Sama ada isu harapan yang sah dapat dipertahankan - Sama ada Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan perlu mengemukakan laporan yang menjadi asas keputusan yang dibuat oleh Menteri

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - T Thavalingam & Rebecca Sonali Alfred; T/n Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama dan kedua - SFC Ausyaf Falina; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Jabatan Peguam Negara
  • Bagi pihak responden ketiga - Lim Wei Jiet; T/n Sreenevasan

CLJ 2020 Volume 5 (Part 3)

The law dictates that (i) once a registered society is cancelled, all the assets belonging to the society are vested in the Director-General of Insolvency ('DGI'), pursuant to s. 17(1) of the Societies Act 1966; (ii) the DGI shall proceed to wind up the affairs of the society in accordance with the laws relating to bankruptcy and winding up of a company; and (iii) the DGI has the power to apply to the court for a vesting order of the cancelled society's assets to a new society.
Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi v.Setiausaha, Lembaga Wakaf Hindu Negeri Pulau Pinang & Another Appeal [2020] 5 CLJ 295 [CA]

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS: Society - De-registration - Society de-registered and cancelled by Registrar of Societies for failing to adhere to instruction to re-conduct general meeting - Board sought, inter alia, to be absolute owner of Society's assets - Whether Board possessed any rights or interest over assets before de-registration of Society - Whether once Society was cancelled, all assets vested in Director General of Insolvency - Societies Act 1966, s. 17

 

 

ZALEHA YUSOF JCA
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA

  • For the 1st appellant - Mohamad Hanafi Basri; SFC
  • For the 2nd appellant - N Ahilan; M/s N Ahilan & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Supramaniam Kasia Pillai, Geetha, Supramaniam & Arumugam Ganapathy; M/s Supramaniam & Partners

The court, in determining the true bargain struck between the parties in a settlement agreement for a debt owed, found no intention to pass the beneficial interest and ownership in the properties which were assigned for the sole purpose of paying the redemption sum to the chargee bank; The failure to reassign the properties once the debt was settled amounted to unconscionable conduct necessitating the imposition of a constructive trust in satisfaction of the demands of justice and good conscience.
KTPC Resort Development Bhd v. Convobuilt Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 5 CLJ 317 [CA]

CONTRACT: Agreement - Settlement agreement - 58 units of apartments assigned as part payment of debt owed in lieu of cash payment - 24 units were redemption units intended for sole purpose of effecting payment of redemption sum to chargee bank - Whether there was intention to pass beneficial interest and ownership in redemption units - Whether justice and good conscience warranted invocation of constructive trust over redemption units - Whether redemption units ought to be reassigned upon settlement of debt

CONTRACT: Interpretation - Intention of parties - Settlement agreement - 58 units of apartments assigned as part payment of debt owed in lieu of cash payment - 24 units were redemption units intended for sole purpose of effecting payment of redemption sum to chargee bank - Whether there was intention to pass beneficial interest and ownership in redemption units - Whether justice and good conscience warranted invocation of constructive trust over redemption units - Whether redemption units ought to be reassigned upon settlement of debt

 

 

BADARIAH SAHAMID JCA
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL JCA
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA

(Civil Appeal No: B-02(NCVC)(W)-1976-09-2018)

  • For the appellant - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Sivabalan, Goh Wan Ping & Lim Yvonne; M/s Mastura Partnership
  • For the respondent - Joslyne Goonting, Lum May Lan & Tan Yiwen; M/s ML Lum & Co

(Civil Appeal No: B-02(NCVC)(W)-2023-10-2018)

  • For the appellant - Joslyne Goonting, Lum May Lan & Tan Yiwen; M/s ML Lum & Co
  • For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Sivabalan, Goh Wan Ping & Lim Yvonne; M/s Mastura Partnership

In finding the accused to be medically and legally insane at the time he committed the criminal acts he was charged with, the trial judge should have followed the procedure prescribed by s. 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was to acquit the accused. There was no necessity for the trial judge to call upon the accused to enter his defence for the simple reason that the defence of insanity by reason of intoxication, under s. 85(2)(b) of the Penal Code, had been established.
PP v. Aldwin Rojas Saz [2020] 5 CLJ 330 [CA]

|

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal by prosecution - Accused initially charged with murder under s. 302 of Penal Code - Accused murdered son while under influence of methamphetamine use - Charge amended to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s. 304(b) of Penal Code - Whether trial judge should have called upon accused to enter defence to murder charge as required by s. 180(3) of Criminal Procedure Code instead of amending charge to lesser offence - Whether defence of insanity by reason of intoxication under s. 85(2)(b) of Penal Code established - Whether accused ought to have been acquitted and ordered to be kept in safe custody - Whether conviction null and void - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 348(1)

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 302 - Offence of murder - Accused initially charged with murder under s. 302 of Penal Code - Accused murdered son while under influence of methamphetamine use - Charge amended to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s. 304(b) of Penal Code - Whether trial judge should have called upon accused to enter defence to murder charge as required by s. 180(3) of Criminal Procedure Code instead of amending charge to lesser offence - Whether defence of insanity by reason of intoxication under s. 85(2)(b) of Penal Code established - Whether accused ought to have been acquitted and ordered to be kept in safe custody - Whether conviction null and void - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 348(1)

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon - Accused charged with injuring wife with dangerous weapon - Accused found to have committed acts while under influence of methamphetamine use - Whether defence of insanity by reason of intoxication under s. 85(2)(b) of Penal Code established - Whether accused ought to have been acquitted and ordered to be kept in safe custody - Whether conviction null and void - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 348(1)

 

ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI JCA
MARY LIM JCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM JCA

  • For the prosecution - Muhammad Azmi Mashud; DPP
  • For the respondent - Hamid Ismaill; M/s Hamid & Co

1. An arbitration award is final, binding and conclusive and could only be challenged in exceptional circumstances. If an arbitrator had erred by drawing wrong inferences of fact from the evidence before him, be it oral or documentary, that in itself is not sufficient for the setting aside of his award.

2. An Arbitral Tribunal is allowed to pick, sieve and choose the arguments raised by parties which are deemed necessary for consideration. The Tribunal is not obliged to slavishly adopt the position of parties not is it obliged to repeat and regurgitate all the arguments of the parties in arriving at its decision.

3. Questions of law arising from arbitral awards that are referred to the court cannot be questions that are 'dressed up' in an attempt to re-ventilate a case. These 'dressed up' questions that were already referred and determined by the Arbitral Tribunal must escape the scrutiny of the court.
Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Bhd v. Virginia Surety Company Labuan Branch [2020] 5 CLJ 345 [HC]

ARBITRATION: Award - Setting aside - Application to set aside arbitral award - Dispute arising from re-insurance agreement - Arbitral tribunal dismissed claim - Tribunal made reference to fundamental principle of utmost good faith in re-insurance relationship in four paragraphs of majority award - Whether there was breach of natural justice in manner in which majority of arbitral tribunal arrived at decision - Whether arbitral tribunal obliged to repeat and regurgitate all arguments of parties when arriving at findings - Whether arbitral tribunal allowed to only pick and choose arguments deemed necessary for consideration - Whether parties accorded right to be heard - Whether arbitral award ought to be set aside - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 37(2)(b)(ii)

ARBITRATION: Award - Reference - Questions of law - Dispute arising from re-insurance agreement - Arbitral tribunal dismissed claim - Aggrieved party raised questions of law arising from arbitral award - Whether questions posed were legitimate questions of law - Whether issues raised in questions already considered and determined by arbitral tribunal during arbitration - Whether raising of questions of law an attempt to re-ventilate case - Whether questions ought to be answered - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 42

 

 

AHMAD FAIRUZ ZAINOL ABIDIN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Liew Teck Huat, Sitpah Selvanathan & Lim Qi Si; M/s Suflan TH Liew & Partners
  • For the defendant - Felix Raj, TS Lim, Kenneth Koh Arien On & YC Chian (PDK); M/s Chooi & Company + Cheang & Ariff

1. Any arrangement made between Malaysia and any country for the extradition of fugitive criminals may be made under the Extradition Act 1992 ('Act') if the order of the Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister'), pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, is published in the Gazette. The Agreement and Exchange of Notes dated 3 August 1995 between Malaysia and the US in respect of the arrangement for the extradition of offenders is published in the Gazette as the Extradition (United States) Order 1997 vide P.U.(A) 213/1997 and came into force on 2 June 1997.

2. In an application made under s. 19 of the Act, the court must consider whether a prima facie case has been made out in support of the requisition of the country concerned before committing a fugitive criminal to prison. This requirement, however, is dispensed with if the application is made under the procedures pursuant to s. 20 of the Act, which require a direction given by the Minister under s. 4 of the Act.
Kang Juntao v. Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [2020] 5 CLJ 368 [HC]

|

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Habeas corpus - Writ - Issuance - Application for immediate release - Applicant, citizen of People's Republic of China wanted by Government of United States of America ('US Government') for trial - Applicant faced charges relating to laundering, and aiding and abetting laundering, monetary instruments - Applicant arrested by Government of Malaysia following Extradition Treaty entered with US Government - Whether applicant extraditable to US - Sessions Court granted warrant for fugitive criminal to be committed to prison pending issuance of order by Minister of Home Affairs for applicant's surrender - Whether warrant proper and regular - Whether applicant committed any offence within territory of US - Whether offence allegedly committed by applicant had extraterritorial effect under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Whether there was element of dual-criminality - Whether offence alleged to have been committed had anything to do with Malaysia - Whether there was probable cause - Whether application for writ of habeas corpus ought to be allowed - Whether applicant ought to be released immediately - Extradition Act 1992, ss. 2(1), 12, 13 & 20

CRIMINAL LAW: Extradition - Request made pursuant to Extradition Treaty - Citizen of People's Republic of China wanted by Government of United States of America ('US') for trial - Fugitive criminal faced charges relating to laundering, and aiding and abetting laundering, monetary instruments at US Court - Fugitive criminal arrested by Government of Malaysia following Extradition Treaty entered with US Government - Sessions Court granted warrant for committal to fugitive criminal pending issuance of order by Minister of Home Affairs for fugitive criminal's surrender - Whether warrant proper and regular - Whether court must consider whether prima facie case had been made out in support of requisition of requesting country before committing fugitive criminal to prison - Whether requirement dispensed with if application was made under procedures pursuant to s. 20 of Extradition Act 1992 - Whether there was direction given by Minister of Home Affairs under s. 4 of Extradition Act 1992

 

AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH JC

  • For the applicant - James Ee Kah Fuk & Lee Ewe Kiang; M/s KF Ee & Co
  • For the respondents - Faizul Aswad Masri & Suloshani Vijendran; SFCs

In the action for patent infringement of Patent 705, the headscarf 'Bokitta Hijab', the ready-to-wear in a wrapped-style instant hijab, which provided practical solutions to specific problems in the fashion industry, could be considered a unique and novel invention under the Patents Act 1983 and thus, the company selling a similar design had infringed Patent 705.
Mohammad Mubde Absi & Ors v. Hyat Collections Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 5 CLJ 388 [HC]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Patent - Infringement - Whether ready-to-wear and pinless hijab patentable under Patents Act 1983 - Whether hijab an invention and involved inventive steps - Whether invention sought to solve problems in traditional hijab - Whether invention was novel - Whether patent had 'Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments' that fulfilled reg. 5(1)(b) of Patent Regulations 1986 - Whether invention industrially applicable - Whether infringement of patent proven - Patents Act 1983, ss. 11, 12(1), 13(1), 14(1), 15(1), 36(1)(a), (2), (3)(a)(i), 56(1), (2)(a) & 58

 

 

WONG KIAN KHEONG J

  • For the plaintiffs - Steven Cheok Hou Cher, Ng Kim Poh & Nicole Alexandra Chong Zhi Wan; M/s Christopher & Lee Ong
  • For the defendants - Mohd Aimi Zaini Mohd Azhar & Zainuritha-Alfa Abu Hassan; M/s Aimi, Zainuritha & Co

An order for forfeiture, pursuant to s. 56(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, could only be made against a specific property. Section 56 makes no provision for the court to forfeit or order the payment of a penalty equivalent to the amount sought to be forfeited.
PP v. Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu [2020] 5 CLJ 416 [HC]

CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 56(1) - Application for forfeiture - Allegation that monies and interests accrued in bank account were proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether amount sought to be forfeited specifically specified - Whether monies still in existence - Whether monies had been fully utilised - Whether there were monies from other sources - Whether requirements under s. 56(1) fulfilled - Whether monies in bank account could be forfeited

CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Section 4(1) - Proceeds of unlawful activity - Application for forfeiture of monies and interests accrued in bank account - Whether monies were proceeds of unlawful activity - Whether there were monies from other sources - Whether monies still in existence - Whether monies in bank account could be forfeited

 

 

MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN J

  • For the applicant - Samiaah Rhazali, Abdul Rashid Sulaiman & Mahadi Abd Jumaat; SFCs
  • For the respondent - Hariharan Tara Singh, Tania Scivetti & Nurfazreen Hazrina Rahim; M/s Scivetti & Assocs

Diversion of plaintiff company's business assets, employees and potential business to a new company by directors in clear breach of fiduciary duties led to deliberate and systematic destruction of plaintiff company. Thus, in assessment of damages, the court held that assets of the new company ought to be regarded as being held by the new company constructively for the benefit of the plaintiff company and where assets no longer available, the plaintiff company is entitled to the value of the items meant to be held for the benefit of the plaintiff company.
TAZ Logistics Sdn Bhd v. TAZ Metals Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 5 CLJ 388 [HC]

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Breach of fiduciary duty - General, special and exemplary damages - Assessment of - Directors diverted business of plaintiff company to new company - Whether property, plant and equipment held constructively by new company for benefit of plaintiff company - Whether plaintiff company entitled to value of items in absence of indication on existence of property, plant and equipment - Whether loss of profits calculated based on average net profits - Assessment of quantum of exemplary damages - Whether punitive in nature - Whether signified disapproval, condemnation or denunciation of acts against plaintiff company

 

 

DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE J

  • For the plaintiff - R Jayasingam & Ng Keng Yang; M/s BH Lawrence & Co
  • For the defendants - Owee Chia Ming & Saw Wei Siang; M/s Ranjit Singh & Yeoh

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. PLEA OF MITIGATION: OF GRASPING IT AND SUBMITTING IN THE COURT OF LAW [Read excerpt]
    by Saravanan Meyappan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxii

  2. [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    PLEA OF MITIGATION: OF GRASPING IT AND SUBMITTING IN THE COURT OF LAW

    by
    Saravanan Meyappan*

    WHAT IS A PLEA OF MITIGATION

    Mitigation is a crucial aspect of sentencing in the criminal justice system. It is so significant that no sentencing of the court will occur without a mitigation submission of the accused person. Mitigation is aimed towards diminution in degree or severity of the punishment or penalty that shall be pronounced by the court either in a summons or warrant case. After conviction, mitigation is the germane moment where the accused person's voice either on his own and/or through a counsel will be heard by the court for leniency on the punishment. It is a matter of personal liberty due to the effect of sentencing. No person should be condemned unheard (audiatur el altera pars).This is a principle of natural justice having its origin in the concept of the rule of law. 

    . . .

    * The author is a presiding criminal court Magistrate at Kuala Lumpur. All the ideas and views expressed via this humble writing are based on the author's personal opinion purely and does not in any circumstances reflect the views of the esteemed professional body that the author is employed at present.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. The Recent Reform of the EU Market Abuse Regime: An Improvement or Hindrance? [Read excerpt]
    by Tan Wai Kit* [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxiii

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxiii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    The Recent Reform of the EU Market Abuse Regime:
    An Improvement or Hindrance?


    by
    Tan Wai Kit*

    Introduction

    Initially, the EU market abuse regime primarily emphasized on insider dealing ("ID").[1] Later, Directive 2003/6/EC ("MAD")[2] expanded the regime to encompass ID, market manipulation ("MM") and ad hoc disclosure obligations.[3] Such an extended market abuse regime is increasingly recognized by lawmakers and market participants[4] as it enhances investor protection and ensures market integrity, stability and efficiency.[5] Nevertheless, several challenges including especially financial crisis, financial innovations and market fragmentation have revealed shortcomings within the MAD framework. Accordingly, upon extensive reforms, an 'updated, reinforced and expensive'[6] regime founded on Regulation 596/2014 ("MAR")[7] and Directive 2014/57/EU ("CRIM-MAD")[8] was promulgated to overcome these challenges.

    . . .

    * LLM (University of Bristol); LLB (Hons) (Multimedia University). He can be contacted at tanwk1993@gmail.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. WITHER THE OATH [Read excerpt]
    by Datuk Joy Appukuttan* [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxiv

  6. [2020] 1 LNS(A) lxiv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    WITHER THE OATH

    by
    Datuk Joy Appukuttan*

    The Federal Constitution makes it mandatory that before Ministers or Deputy Ministers can exercise any of the functions of his office, he must first take his oath of office, allegiance and secrecy before His Majesty, the King.[1]

    Similarly, the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat cannot assume his duties until he takes the oath of office and allegiance.[2]

    Likewise members of either Houses of Parliament cannot take their seat in Parliament until they have taken their oath of office and allegiance (save and except in the case of the election of the speakers to the respective Houses).[3]

    . . .

    * Barrister at Law (Middle Temple), Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore) (Non Practicing). Created on 17 May 2020.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 826 Food Donors Protection Act 2020 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] -
ACT 825 Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 31 January 2020 -
ACT 824 Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] -
ACT 823 Finance Act 2019 Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1617 Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 590
ACT A1616 Central Bank Of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 701
ACT A1615 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 177
ACT A1614 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 ACT 445
ACT A1613 Carriage Of Goods By Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Foce ACT 527

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 182/2020 Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases (Compounding Of Offences) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2020 9 June 2020 10 June 2020 PU(A) 327/1993
PU(A) 181/2020 Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (No. 7) Regulations 2020 9 June 2020 10 June 2020 to 31 August 2020 ACT 342
PU(A) 180/2020 Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases (Declaration Of Infected Local Areas) (Extension Of Operation) (No. 5) Order 2020 9 June 2020 10 June 2020 to 31 August 2020 ACT 342
PU(A) 179/2020 Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases (Amendment Of First Schedule) Order 2020 9 June 2020 10 June 2020 ACT 342
PU(A) 178/2020 Price Control And Anti-Profiteering (Determination Of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol And Diesel) (No. 8) (Revocation) Order 2020 3 June 2020 4 June 2020 ACT 723

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 257/2020 Notification Of Values Of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 4 June 2020 5 June 2020 to 18 June 2020 ACT 235
PU(B) 256/2020 Notice Of Proposed Revocation Of Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 107 Town Kuala Lumpur 4 June 2020 5 June 2020 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 255/2020 Declaration Under Section 3 3 June 2020 4 June 2020 ACT 537
PU(B) 254/2020 Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation 3 June 2020 4 June 2020 ACT A1612
PU(B) 253/2020 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 503 Bandar Kuala Lumpur 3 June 2020 4 June 2020 ACT 56/1965

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 342 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 PU(A) 179/2020 10 June 2020 First Schedule
AKTA 342 Akta Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit 1988 PU(A) 179/2020 10 Jun 2020 Jadual Pertama
PU(A) 327/1993 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 1993 PU(A) 182/2020 10 June 2020 First Schedule
ACT A1612 Copyright (Amendment) Act 2020 ACT 332 1 December 1987 [PU(B) 586/1987] Sections 28, 35 and 59C
AKTA A1612 Akta Hak Cipta (Pindaan) 2020 AKTA 332 1 Disember 1987 [PU(B) 586/1987] Seksyen 28, 35 dan 59C

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 64/2020 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Runcit Maksimum Bagi Petrol Dan Diesel) (No. 8) 2020 [Dibatalkan Oleh PU(A) 178/2020] PU(A) 178/2020 4 Jun 2020
PU(A) 64/2020 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 8) Order 2020 PU(A) 178/2020 4 June 2020
PU(A) 336/2014 Income Tax (Deduction For Expenses in Relation to Secretarial Fee and Tax Filing Fee) Rules 2014 PU(A) 162/2020 Year of assessment 2020
PU(A) 133/2020 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (No. 4) 2020 [Dibatalkan Oleh PU(A) 136/2020] PU(A) 136/2020 4 Mei 2020 hingga 12 Mei 2020
PU(B) 80/2019 Notification of Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles (New) Under Section 12 PU(B) 217/2020 30 April 2020