Week 12

PP v Yeoh Teck Chye
The facts of the case are as follows, the 1 st accused was Yeoh Tech Chye who was the general deputy
manager of a bank, and he had power to authorize payments in cheques. The 2 nd accused was the
manager of a bank and he had no power to authorize cheques, but has the initials of the 1 st accused in
register of cheques. The 2nd accused was accused of criminal breach of trust as it was alleged that he
had dominion over properties of the bank, and had misapprioprated the properties, as he had approved
payment of cheques which was in excess of overdraft facilities to the 3rd accused, when he actually
had no power in granting such cheques, and thus acting outside of his power.
The judge of the case had interpreted Seciton 405 as having three main requirements, firstly, t he
accused should be entrusted with property or dominion over property, (b) he should dishonestly
misappropriate or convert the property to his own use OR dishonestly use or dispose of the property
or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation of (c) any direction of law prescribing the
manner in which such trust is to be discharged OR of any legal contract made touching the discharge
of such trust.
The court in this case held that there was entrustment to or dominion over the property of the Bank to
2nd accused, as the properties of the bank had been entrusted to him, and he had also misappropriated
the property by granting overdrafts in excess when he had no power to do so, and thus had acted in
breach of a legal contract touching the discharge of the trust.
The court also held that there had been wrongful gain to the 3 rd accused who the cheque was granted
to, in that he had obtained easy loans for his business and share buying ventures dishonestly. The
court held that to allow such wrongful gain must prima facie be the intention of 2 nd accused in
facilitating the opening of the accounts and in subsequently allowing the numerous overdrafts. Thus,
the 2nd accused was guilty on the two charges of criminal breach of trust should be upheld.
Public Prosecutor v. Lawrence Tan Hui Seng

The respondent was prosecuted on two counts of criminal breach of trust in contravention of Section
409 of the Penal Code. There are various issues discussed in the case, including the issue of whether
the element of dishonesty is proved depending on particular circumstances of the case, where the firm
has taken a client’s money for the firm use without the client’s consent. Additionally, the other issue
is whether it is relevant that the firm intends to restitute the amount taken without authority from the
client in defending the firm’s misappropriation of the sums. The court answered this particular issue
in negative, where even if the firm intends to restitute as soon as they are able to, it amounts to
criminal breach of trust.
The court emphasized that the very first ingredient which the prosecution must prove under Section
405 is that the accused was either entrusted with the property the subject of the charge or was
entrusted with dominion over that property. In the case of entrustment of dominion over that property,
the mere existence of that person’s dominion over property is not enough. It was stated that the
prosecution must go further and show beyond reasonable doubt that his dominion was the result of
entrustment, and that he only had power over the properties due to the entrustment to him. The term
“entrustment” in Section 405 governs not only the words “with the property” immediately following it
but also the words “or with any dominion over the property”.
Other than that, in the words of the court, “In our view, for purposes of Section 405 of our Penal
Code, there must be an actual and not just a fictional entrustment.This is because the expression
“entrustment” implies that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is
handed over to another, continues to be its owner.”
The other issue the court discussed was whether it is criminal breach of trust when an employer
having deducted his employee’s contribution in accordance with the Employees Provident Fund Act
1951 fails to remit the same to the Fund and such failure is due to the Firm not having money to do
so, it having used the money. The court eventually held that the deduction by an employer from the
wages of the employee pursuant to the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, does not
amount to entrustment under Section 405 of the Penal Code. This is because once the employer
deducts the employee’s distribution to the Provident Fund from his wages, such an employer can
exercise no control over the sum of money thus deducted nor can he exercise any right of ownership
over the same simply because he no longer is the owner of the same. Hence, the deduction by an
employer from the wages of an employee pursuant to the provision of the EPF does not amount to
entrustment under Section 405.
PP v Cho Sing Khoo & Anor [2015] 4 MLJ 689

The facts of the case are as follows, the respondents were directors of the company Ganad Media,
which is a subsidiary company under Ganad Cooperation, whose CEO was PW2. PW2 had entrusted
the daily management of Ganad Media to the first respondent, and the second respondent was the
right hand man of the first respondent. Both respondents were responsible for the company’s finance
and accounts.
Ganad Media had rented several outdoor billboard advertising and usually pays rent to these land
owners under the rental contract. One PW20 was instructed by the two respondents to prepare five
payment vouchers for three separate fictitious land owners who were not a party of the billboard
renting contract. The actual owners confirmed that they do not know any of these fictitious land
owners. The two respondents later signed the payment vouchers and cheques and the payments were
cashed.
The court applied the second limb of Section 409(B)(1)(b)(ii), which states that there is a presumption
of dishonest misappriopration when there is any disposal or usage of property in violation of legal
contract, and held that the respondents were violating the legal contract between Ganad Media and the
actual land owners by making the unauthorised payments. The court held the presumption can be
rebutted by the defence but there is none.
The court further held that to prove dominion under entrustment, it is not requried to prove that the
respondents had exclusive dominion, and it is sufficient if the respondents had control and power of
disposal over the company’s funds. The fact that there were others in the company who had power to
sign the company’s cheques does not dilute the respondent’s control and power of disposal over the
funds.
Thus, the court held that the respondents had been entrusted the control and power of disposal of
properties under Ganad Media, as they had power to sign cheques and where signatories to the bank
account of Ganad Media, and they had dishonestly misapprioprated the properties of Ganad Media by
authorising the payments to fictitious land owners, breaching the legal contract.

Week 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP v Yeoh Teck Chye

Public Prosecutor v. Lawrence Tan Hui Seng

PP v Cho Sing Khoo & Anor [2015] 4 MLJ 689

You might also like