WONG PING KIONG v Pendakwa Raya (WA-44-44-05/2023)

1.

TAI BOON WEE ...APPLICANT’S AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATION [1] The first applicant Wong Ping Kiong is faced with four charges for offences under section 18 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC 2009) [Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur Perbicaraan Jenayah No. WA-62R-15-01/2023]. The charges are as follows: First Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu debit note GIIB Rubber bernombor GWR1/0045 berhubung Sell of Plant & Machinery kepada Top Rate Engineering Works bertarikh 30.12.2019, berjumlah RM2,950.000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai bitir mantan yang palsu iaitu penjualan 6 unit mesin terpakai sepertimana dalam deskripsi (MAC0807-02: 3 unit of Press Machine (F3) (Press E, I & J), MAC0811-01: Bambury & Mixing Mill, MAC1405-02: F3-A and B Press dan MAC1506-01: 1 Press Project Thread Press Machine) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah RM2,950.000.00 yang mana sebenarnya penjualan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan bolh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. Second Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposed of Used Machinety, Dated 21 August 2020, berjumlah RM400,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhdbagi pelupusan 1 unit mesin terpakai (MAC0811-01: 60 liter capacity) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM400,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya penjualan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan bolh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. Third Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposed of Used Machinety, Dated 5 September 2020, berjumlah RM600,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhdbagi pelupusan 3 unit mesin terpakai (MAC0807-02, MAC1405- 02 dan MAC1506-01) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM600,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya penjualan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan bolh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. Fourth Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposed of Used Machinery, Dated 19 July 2020, berjumlah ,950,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd bagi pelupusan 1 unit mesin terpakai (Thread Press Machine: with 8 meter 7 day light length without hydraulics pillars) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM1,950,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya penjualan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan bolh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. [2] She claimed trial to all four charges. [3] The second applicant Tai Boon Wee was also charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with three offences under section 28(1) read together with section 18 of MACC 2009 [Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur Perbicaraan Jenayah No. WA-62R-16-01/2023]. The charges are as follows: First Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposal of Used Machinety, Dated 21 August 2020, berjumlah RM400,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan Wong Ping Keong mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd bagi pelupusan 1 unit mesin terpakai (MAC0811-01: 60 liter capacity) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM400,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya pelupusan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan pada tarikh tersebut kamu telah bersubahat melakukan kesalahan tersebut di mana kesalahan tersebut telah dilakukan hasil suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 28(1)(c) Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dibaca bersama seksyen 18 Akta yang sama yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. Second Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposed of Used Machinety, Dated 5 September 2020, berjumlah RM600,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan Wong Ping Keong mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhdbagi pelupusan 3 unit mesin terpakai (MAC0807-02, MAC1405-02 dan MAC1506-01) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM600,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya pelupusan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, dan pada tarikh tersebut kamu telah bersubahat melakukan kesalahan tersebut di mana kesalahan tersebut telah dilakukan hasil suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 28(1)(c) Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dibaca bersama seksyen 18 Akta yang sama dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. Third Charge Bahawa kamu di antara bulan Januari 2021 dan Februari 2021 di pejabat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT, Level 11, Sheraton Imperial Court, Jalan Sultan Ismail dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur telah memberi seorang agen iaitu Tam Siew Ping Pengurus Audit Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT dengan niat hendak memperdayakan prisipalnya iaitu Syarikat Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT satu dokumen iaitu Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd, director’s Circular Resulotion, Resolved: Disposed of Used Machinery, Dated 19 July 2020, berjumlah RM1 ,950,000.00 dimana prinsipalnya itu mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai sebab memprcayai mempunyai butir mantan yang palsu iaitu kebenaran diberi kepada Syarikat Goodway Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd bagi pelupusan 1 unit mesin terpakai (Thread Press Machine: with 8 meter 7 day light length without hydraulics pillars) kepada Top Rate Engineering Works berjumlah berjumlah RM1,950,000.00 yang mana sebenarnya penjualan tersebut tidak berlaku dan yang dimaksudkan untuk mengelirukan prinsipalnya, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009, dan pada tarikh tersebut kamu telah bersubahat melakukan kesalahan tersebut di mana kesalahan tersebut telah dilakukan hasil suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 28(1)(c) Akta suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dibaca bersama seksyen 18 Akta yang sama dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 24(2) Akta yang sama. [4] He claimed trial to all three charges. [5] The Sessions Court granted the Respondent’s application for the cases against both applicants to be tried together since the background facts of the two cases are related. [6] The crux of the charges against both applicants are that as directors of GIIB Rubber Compound Sdn Bhd (GIIB) they conspired to mislead GIIB’s auditor Grant Thornton Malaysia PLT (Grant Thornton) by giving false documents to Grant Thornton’s agent. [7] The four documents alleged to be false which form the basis of the charges are: i. A Debit note from GIIB to TOP Rate Engineering Works (Debit Nota) which forms the basis of the first charge against the first applicant; ii. A Director’s Circular Resolution for the sale of machinery worth RM400,000.00 which forms the basis of the second charge against the first applicant and first charge against the second applicant; iii. A Director’s Circular Resolution for the sale of machinery worth RM600,000.00 which forms the basis of the third charge against the first applicant and the second charge against the second applicant; and iv. A Director’s Circular Resolution for the sale of machinery worth RM1,950,000.00 which forms the basis of the fourth charge against the first applicant and the third charge against the second applicant. [8] The applicants are now seeking to have all the charges against them to be set aside/quashed or alternatively for the prosecution against them be permanently stayed. [9] Both the applicants and the respondent agree that the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to hear and decide this application. A quick reference to the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Siow Chun Peng v PP [2014] 6 CLJ 423 and Karpal Singh & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1991] 2 MLJ 544 (Supreme Court) confirm this position. [10] This inherent power however must only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to prevent undue oppression and abuse of the process of the court. Refer Ahmad Zubair Hj Murshid v PP [2014] 9 CLJ 289 (Federal Court). [11] The applicants stated four grounds as the basis of this application: i. That the implied requirement that Grant Thornton must have been deceived or misled is not apparent on the face of the charges against the applicants; ii. That the applicants could not be said to have intended to deceive or mislead Grant Thornton if the documents referred to had nothing to do with Grant Thornton; iii. That the three Director’s Circular Resolution could not have been false or erroneous or defective in their material particulars as described in the charges against the applicants; and iv. That the three Director’s Circular Resolution are not “other documents” within the meaning of section 18 MACC 2009. COURT’S FINDING [12] Both parties had filed their respective submissions and replies. [13] In opposing this application, the prosecution submitted that as auditors it is the primary duty of Grant Thornton to check and audit the documents regarding the disposal of the used machines belonging to GIIB Rubber to Top Rate Engineering (as stated in the charges) to ensure it reflect the true and fair account of the assets of GIIB Rubber and the financial statement of the company. Therefore, the interest of Grant Thornton being the auditor lies in the documents in question in the context of section 18 MACC Act 2009. [14] It was further submitted that nowhere in section 18 MACC Act 2009 requires the charge of misleading the principal to stipulate the loss or detriment caused to the principal due to the document in question containing the false particulars in material which being intended to mislead its principal. The case of Hj Abdul Rahim Hassan & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1997] MLJU 238 was quoted to support this argument. [15] As for the third ground of this application, it was submitted that it encroached into the realm of factual matrix of the case which the respondent will unfold its narrative by adducing factual evidence during the course of trial. Whether the impugned documents contain false particulars in material as indicted in the charge is therefore a question fact. [16] On the issue of whether the 3 director’s resolution stipulated in the charges are “not other documents” as categorized in section 18 MACC Act 2009, it was the respondent’s contention that these director’s circular resolutions are inextricably intertwined with the account of GIIB Rubber, thus placing them within the category of “other document” in section 18. Reliance is placed on the Federal Court decision of Nadimuthu v PP [1974] 1 MLJ 20 and Hj Abdul Rahim Hassan & Anor v Public Prosecutor (supra). [17] Having perused the submission of both parties, I agree with the applicants’ contention that the nature of the offence under section 18 is one of fraud. Therefore, the principal who is the contemplated victim must have been defrauded and suffered loss as a result of relying on the false documents in which he has an interest. Refer Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PP [1992] 1 SLR ® 532. [18] In the present charges against the applicants, there is no mention or suggestion that Grant Thornton would have suffered any financial loss or even the risk of such loss. I opined that the failure to specify any loss Grant Thornton has incurred is because the said documents had nothing to do with Grant Thornton and they are not documents which Grant Thornton has any interest in. [19] Therefore, on this issue, I find for the applicants. [20] The last issue is, whether the three director’s circular resolutions are not “other documents” within the meaning of section 18 MACC Act 2009. It must be noted that the words “other document” in section 18 follows the words ‘receipt” and “account”. I accepted the applicants’ counsel’s submission that applying the principles of statutory interpretation i.e. noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, the term ‘other document’ must be understood as being documents of the same nature as ‘receipt’ and account’. [21] This proposition is supported by a decision in the case of PP v Kyle-Little & Anor [1971] 1 MLJ 125 where Abdul Hamid J held: “In the instant case, I am inclined to think that apart from literal meaning that the court should place upon the word ‘document’ appearing in section 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, it is, I think, imperative on the courts to look alone at the words used and the word should not bear the meaning inconsistent with the context in which it being used.” [22] In the case above, the central issue of contention was whether the pipes which bore specification markings fell within the meaning of ‘other document’ in section 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 which is in pari materia with section 18 MACC Act 2009. CONCLUSION [23] Based on the abovementioned reasons, I find for the applicants and the application to set aside/quashed the charges (4 against the first applicant and 3 against the second applicant) is allowed as per paragraph 1 and 2 of the notice of application (enclosure 1). Dated : 31st March 2026 (AZHAR BIN ABDUL HAMID) Judge Criminal High Court (7) Kuala Lumpur Parties:- For the Applicants : Datuk Amer Hamzah bin Arshad, Joshua Tay H’ng Foong & Kee Shu Min Messrs. AmerBON, Advocates For the Respondent : Low Chin How, Zander Lim Wai Keong & Nurul Atiqah binti Mohamad Alias