Gunasekar A/L Mariappan v Chin Boon Long (WA-22NCC-474-07/2023)

GUNASEKAR A/L MARIAPPAN …PLAINTIFFS (IC No.: 681030-10-5425)

PHILIP PHANG KIN MING (IC No.: 650623-10-6747)

CHIN BOON LONG …DEFENDANTS (IC No.: 680709-01-5149)

KENNY KHOW CHUAN WAH (IC No.: 750412-10-5697)

CHONG KOON MENG (IC No.:660604-02-5019)

MMAG HOLDINGS BERHAD S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ (Company No.: 200301007003 / 609423-V)

M JETS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD (Company No.: 201801001245)

SHANMUGANANTHAN A/L RATNAM (IC No.: 710824-10-6665)

SAYSU A/L S. MICHAEL (IC No.: 580821-10-6333)

ANTON ALEX SCHUBERT (IC No.: 610421-08-5507)

JT AEROTECH SOLUTIONS SDN BHD (Company No.: 201901038373 / 137703-K) S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

[Application to give evidence by way of remote communication technology] Prologue

Those of us of a certain vintage will recall fondly a 1960s television series called The Fugitive, about a doctor who is wrongfully convicted of his wife's murder but manages to escape and begins a cross-country search for the real killer while being hunted by the authorities. A memorable remake of this series is The Fugitive, a 1993 film starring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones.

In the application before me, the 1st defendant, Chin Boon Long (better known as Victor Chin) [“1st Defendant” or “Victor Chin”], says that he is no such fugitive.

This is an application by Victor Chin made by way of a letter from his solicitors dated 08-04-2026 (Enclosure 238) to the court, for S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology i.e. by zoom.

According to Victor Chin’s lead counsel Mr Wong Kah Hui the application is made pursuant to paragraph 2(e) of Attachment A2 of The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction 2/2025 dated 13-11-2025 (“2025 RCT PD”).

On 13-04-2026, I heard the application which is opposed only by the plaintiffs. These are my Grounds of Decision. Facts of the case

The plaintiffs have sued nine defendants including Victor Chin in the Kuala Lumpur High Court of Malaya for damages of RM 30.45 million, damages of RM 9.8 million, general damages, special damages of RM 9.6 million, interest and costs.

Trial has commenced on 18-07-2025 and as at the date of the filing of the application the trial is at day 3 with the plaintiff’s 1st witness Philip Phang Kin Ming still under cross-examination. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

By the 1st defendant’s solicitors’ letter dated 08-04-2026 (Enclosure 238) (“D1’s 1st Letter”) and the 1st defendant’s solicitors letter dated 09-04-2026 (Enclosure 239) (“D1’s 2nd Letter”), Victor Chin applied to the Court for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology.

The application is opposed by the plaintiffs as communicated in the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ letter dated 09-04-2026 (Enclosure 241) (“Plaintiffs’ Letter”).

The 1st defendant’s solicitors responded to the objection via the 1st defendant’s solicitors’ letter dated 10-04-2026 (Enclosure 246) (“D1’s 3rd Letter”). Authorities relied on by Victor Chin

Victor Chin relies on the following authorities to support his application-i. Section 15A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which empowers the Courts to conduct proceedings via a live video link or other modes of electronic communication; ii. Order 33A of the Rules of Court 2012 [“ROC 2012”]; S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ iii. the case of Karen Yap Chew Ling v Binary Group Services Bhd and another appeal [2023] 4 MLJ 792, CA; iv. Ing Bank NV v Anish Resources Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 591 HC; and v. 2025 RCT PD which replaces The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction 1/2021 dated 08-01- 2021.

Victor Chin submits that this Honourable Court should allow his evidence to be given by way of remote communication in the interest of justice and on the following grounds set out in his counsel’s written submissions [Enclosure 249] which I reproduce below: i. His application is made in good faith, driven by practical considerations and genuine safety concerns, and not with any intention to delay, disrupt or prejudice the proceedings; ii. He is currently not within Malaysia, having left the jurisdiction due to serious and genuine concerns for his personal safety; iii. These concerns arise from extensive media coverage and public allegations made against him, which have placed him in a position where he reasonably fears harm being done to his person should he at this juncture return to Malaysia. The 1st S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ defendant is in fact a victim of broader corporate misconduct, which is currently the subject of public scrutiny and investigation. See Bloomberg article dated 11-02-2026: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-02- 11/malaysia-macc-allegedly-working-with-businessmen-to-seize-control-of-companies?utm.com See Bloomberg article dated 24-03-2026: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-24/chin-says-malaysia-corporate-mafia-exists-police-are involved?utm.com

He maintains that as one of the defendants named in this action, he has the right to and wishes to participate in the current proceedings to contest the allegations made against him in the action, which he has vigorously denied in his Defence dated 02- 10-2023 (Enclosure 19), as filed before this Honourable Court.

He contends that he has commenced proceedings in the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Suit No. WA22NCvC-168-04/2026 (“Suit 168”), and in his Statement of Claim dated 06-04-2026 he had expressly set out, inter alia, threats, alleged misuse of S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ enforcement mechanisms, and events which caused him to reasonably fear for his safety, including: “45. Then on 13.10.2025, through a tele-conversation between Victor and Amin, Amin made it clear that “Your life is more important than the Company and it is best that you let go now. Ask Tan Sri to resign and terminate the term sheet with Datuk Hanifah, otherwise Tan Sri will also kena. …

The question arises as to why Victor … and other believed the threat from Amin is that there was a remand initiated by the Royal Malaysian Police (AMLA division) (“RMP”) against … parties known to Victor.

The threat put forth by Amin was not a casual threat but a proven threat by the conduct of the RMP.

Simultaneously on 14.10.2025, post the resignation of Tan Sri Adib … Tan Sri Adib was warned not to associate himself with Victor. At the same time, to prove that Amin’s threat is real, a call was made to RMP by them and they requested an officer from RMP to initiate an arrest against Victor. …

In order to exert further pressure on Victor where Victor was the Executive Director of MMAG Holdings Berhad (“MMAG”), on 17.10.2025, certain bank accounts of MMAG Holdings Berhad’s subsidiaries were frozen by RMP.

Again on 20.10.2025, to exert further pressure … a person connected to Victor was remanded by RMP. On even date, Victor sought Ruben’s assistance to speak to Amin to get RMP to stop pressuring people close to him. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

In light of RMP remanding numerous individuals linked to Victor, both Tan Sri Adib and Victor reasonable believed that their safety was at risk. This belief arose from Amin’s alleged use of RMP to effect such remands, which they perceived to be part of coordinate effort to facilitate Amin’s takeover of NextG Berhad. …

On 22.10.2025, RMP went to MMAG’s office, affecting its operations. More importantly, such events had caused a serious fear to Victor and the staff of MMAG. This was more than an investigation, it was intimidation.”

Victor Chin says the above facts demonstrate that his concerns for his own safety are bona fide, legitimate and not an attempt to evade legal process. His absence from Malaysia is therefore not to avoid the present proceedings, in which he wishes to give evidence, but is a temporary and good faith measure taken for his personal safety.

Victor Chin also says a police report bearing Report No. TRAVERS/002869/26 on 08-04-2026 (“Police Report”) has been lodged at the Travers Police Station, Brickfields by Messrs Krish Maniam & Co on his behalf in relation to concerns for his safety, and that of his solicitors representing him in Suit 168.

Victor Chin further says he has not since his release on police bail been summoned by the police to give any further statement, and no warrant of arrest has been issued nor have any charges been S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ proffered against him. He is not evading arrest and/or any criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the case of Securities Commission Malaysia v Wong Shee Kai & Ors [2023] 7 CLJ 825 (“Wong Shee Kai”), as cited in the plaintiff’s Letter, is distinguishable, seeing that in Wong Shee Kai, the defendant was subject to criminal proceedings and warrants to arrest had been issued. In contrast, in the present case, he has not been charged with any criminal offence, nor has any warrant of arrest been issued against him (See the general principle applicable in Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd [2005] UKHL 10).

Victor Chin submits his application is accordingly premised on exceptional circumstances which affect his ability to attend trial physically. He makes the following offers-i. The plaintiffs/their solicitors are at liberty to nominate a central, supervised location (such as a law firm office with dedicated IT support) at a location outside of Malaysia, for instance the United Kingdom or Singapore, to which he is prepared to travel, so as to give his evidence/testimony for the purposes of this trial. He is prepared to bear reasonable costs in this regard such that the nominated supervising party can ensure proper conduct and compliance with all procedural requirements inclusive of stable internet connectivity and full compliance with all applicable procedural requirements governing remote hearings, including Order 33A of the ROC 2012 and the 2025 RCT PD; S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ ii. He undertakes to travel to the central, supervised location and remains fully committed to participating in all court proceedings and complying with any directions of this Honourable Court, so as to give his evidence remotely for the purposes of this Suit, notwithstanding his serious/genuine concerns for his personal safety; and iii. He will, under the supervision of the nominated party, access / log in to the proceedings to attend the trial from the office of the supervising party, which should be equipped with the necessary administrative and technical facilities to support the proceedings, and to ensure that he is not subject to external interference during the course of his testimony. Issues

As I see it there are only two issues before me. They are-i. Whether an application for evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology is by way of a letter or a Notice of Application supported by an affidavit; and ii. Whether the reasons advanced by Victor Chin are acceptable to the Court to grant his request for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

I shall consider each issue one by one. Issue 1 - Whether an application for evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology is by way of a letter or a Notice of Application supported by an affidavit

Order 33A rule 2(1) ROC 2012 gives power to the Court to direct a hearing to be conducted by way of remote communication technology.

Order 33A rule 2(2) ROC 2012 further states a party can make an application to the Court to direct a hearing to be conducted by way of remote communication technology.

The 2025 RCT PD states the application is by way of a written application.

The application by Victor Chin is by way of a letter. His counsel contends this is allowed relying on paragraph 2(e) of Attachment A2 of the 2025 RCT PD. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

I have to respectfully disagree. This paragraph is applicable only to a party who wishes to attend a proceeding to be conducted using the video platform. It is not applicable to a party or witness who wishes to apply to give evidence by way of remote communication technology.

The 2025 RCT PD at paragraph 6 states the application to give evidence by way of remote communication technology is by a written application. It does not say it is by way of a letter unlike paragraph 2(e) of Attachment A2 of the 2025 RCT PD which expressly said that the application is by way of a letter. This surely must mean the ‘written application’ is a Notice of application supported by an affidavit. The applicant must swear an affidavit to aver to grounds to support his application. It is only on sworn evidence by the applicant that the Court can rely on.

I note that in Wong Shee Kai the application by a defendant there to attend trial by zoom was made by a Notice of application supported by an affidavit.

For the reasons above, I am constrained to hold that there is no proper application before me and in the absence of sworn evidence in an affidavit, the application by Victor Chin has to be dismissed. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

For completeness, assuming an application by a letter is valid I now move to issue 2. Issue 2 - Whether the reasons advanced by Victor Chin are acceptable to the Court to grant his request for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology Court’s analysis

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs Mr Alex de Silva contends that the reasons advanced by Victor Chin are not acceptable to the Court to grant his request for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology for the following reasons-i. the specific location from which a party intends to log in must be clearly disclosed and that it is insufficient to merely state a general location or country; ii. the reason given by Victor Chin that he is not able to testify physically in Court as he fears for his life is not supported by the evidence; and S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ iii. granting his application will bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

I shall examine each reason one by one. 1st reason – The specific location from which a party intends to log in must be clearly disclosed and that it is insufficient to merely state a general location or country

Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d) of the ROC 2012 requires the Court to be satisfied that sufficient administrative and technical facilities and arrangements are made at the place where the person is to give evidence.

Thus, Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d) of the ROC 2012 requires the specific location from which a party intends to log in must be clearly disclosed and that it is insufficient to merely state a general location or country. A case in support of this proposition is Wong Shee Kai at [30 - 34].

In the instant case, Victor Chin did not disclose his actual location. He says that he is prepared to travel to the United Kingdom or Singapore to testify by zoom. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

In my view, the particulars given by Victor Chin’s solicitors are sufficient compliance with Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d) of the ROC

The decision in Wong Shee Kai can be distinguished on the facts.

I now move to the 2nd reason given by the plaintiffs to oppose the application. 2nd reason - The reason given by Victor Chin that he is not able to testify physically in Court as he fears for his life is not supported by the evidence

Paragraph 13[g] of the 2025 RCT PD requires the Court to consider the reason why a witness who is outstation cannot testify in the country.

Victor Chin alleges that he is concerned for his safety. He asserts his absence from Malaysia is not to avoid the present proceedings, in which he wishes to give evidence, but is a temporary and good faith measure taken for his personal safety. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

His fear of harm purportedly arises from extensive media coverage and public allegations linking him to a purported “corporate mafia” syndicate, as well as alleged threats made against him.

He further claims that he is a victim of a broader corporate misconduct and has since filed a civil suit against the alleged wrongdoers, vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No.: WA 22NCvC-168-04/2026.

The Court is not satisfied with his reasons for not been able to testify physically in Court. His allegation of concern for his safety is a bare allegation. The mere filing of a police report by a third party on his behalf alleging concerns for his safety or similar allegations made in a civil suit do not mean that the allegations therein are credible or true.

Victor Chin has not produced any finding from the Malaysian police or the police from the country he is in presently in, stating that his life will be in danger if he is to return to Malaysia.

I now move to the 3rd reason. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ 3rd reason - Granting his application will bring the administration of justice into disrepute

It has been reported in the media and confirmed by statements issued by the Royal Malaysia Police (Bukit Aman) and the Minister of Home Affairs, that Victor Chin is one of several individuals arrested by the police in December 2025 in an operation known as “Ops Viking” on suspicion of being connected to a money laundering syndicate known as the “corporate mafia”, involving a complex network of offences, ranging from illegal money lending and stock market manipulation to breaches of corporate disclosure requirements.[See Ops Viking News Report pages 36 – 38 of plaintiff’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents (3) [E244] and Bloomberg’s Article – pages 13 – 35 of Plaintiff’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents (3) [E244]].

The cases are clear that the courts cannot condone situations where individuals manipulate or abuse the legal system to their own advantage to avoid prosecution and thus undermines the proper administration of justice. Such instances would be when these individuals concerned apply to Court to testify via zoom to avoid arrest if they return to the country to testify in Court physically. [See Wong Shee Kai and Seymour and Another v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCAFC 18, the Federal Court of Australia]. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ

In Wong Shee Kai, Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J said- [42] I accept that if prayers C and D of the RCT application are allowed, it would create a dangerous precedent that undermines the proper administration of justice. It opens the door for individuals facing criminal charges to conveniently avoid prosecution while still engaging in civil proceedings related to those charges. The court cannot condone a situation where individuals can manipulate the legal system to their advantage. This would severely compromise the integrity of the justice system and undermine public trust in the rule of law. [Emphasis added]

In Seymour and Another v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCAFC 18, the Federal Court of Australia in a judicial review affirmed by a 2-1 decision the primary judge’s decision in disallowing evidence to be given via video link. In that case, the appellants were unwilling to return to Australia to provide evidence due to fear of arrest upon return and stated that they would only return if assurances were given that they would not be arrested or prevented from leaving Australia.

Siopis J said: S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ “[22] I agree with the primary judge that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in the approach that it adopted in relation to this public policy aspect of the case. [23] … I would, however, prefer to characterise the Tribunal’s error slightly differently, namely, as the failure by the Tribunal to have regard to the public interest in the proper administration of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), in particular, and to the administration of justice, in general. … [29] Whilst it is the case, as the appellants contend, that in making the impugned orders, the Tribunal did not “assist” the appellants to avoid the operation of Australian law — this was achieved by the appellants’ own conduct in fleeing Australia; nevertheless, in my view, the making of orders permitting the appellants to give evidence from abroad has a tendency to undermine the operation of the Taxation Administration Act. [Emphasis added]

Counsel for Victor Chin relies on Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd [2005] UKHL 10 where the UK House of Lords by a 3-2 majority allowed Mr Polanski a fugitive from justice to testify in his defamation suit filed in England by video link from France. I would respectfully prefer the minority decision which is also the preferred decision of the majority in Seymour and Another v S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCAFC 18, the Federal Court of Australia.

On the facts of the case before me as there is no evidence of a warrant of arrest issued against Victor Chin, the 3rd reason cannot be invoked by the plaintiffs.

For the reasons above, I dismiss Victor Chin’s application for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology with costs of RM 10,000 to be paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs subject to allocatur. Dated: 16th April 2026 …………(signed)…………… Leong Wai Hong Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCC 6) S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ Counsel for plaintiffs: Alex De Silva, Teo Ju-li, Kang Zhen Leong, Tan Keat Hui (Pupil in Chamber) and Vanya Thayanethi (Pupil in chamber). Alvin Tang Law Office (Kuala Lumpur). Counsel for 1st to 4th defendants: Wong Kah Hui, Ng Jing Yi and Jodie Lau Zho Yun (Pupil in Chamber). KH Wong & Co. (Kuala Lumpur). Counsel for 5th defendant: Eric Tan Choon Heong, Alvin Lau Lee Jie and Ulfatun Aini (Pupil in Chamber). Eric Tan (Kuala Lumpur). Counsel for 6th to 8th defendants: Alex Tan Chie Sian and Chin Jia Yi. S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ Alex Tan Chie Sian (Kuala Lumpur). Counsel for 9th defendant: Marvyn Lingam. S G Lingam & Co. (Kuala Lumpur). LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964, section 15A. 2) Rules of Court 2012, Order 33A, Order 33A rule 2(1), Order 33A rule 2(2), Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d). CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Ing Bank NV v Anish Resources Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 591, HC. 2) Karen Yap Chew Ling v Binary Group Services Bhd and another appeal [2023] 4 MLJ 792, CA. 3) Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd [2005] UKHL 10. 4) Securities Commission Malaysia v Wong Shee Kai & Ors [2023] 7 CLJ 825. 5) Seymour and Another v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCAFC

S/N zsT4Kwnr6UeOZ9cdkjSEvQ