AMIRHAMZAH BIN KARIM v Mahani Catherine Binti Hijjas (WA-22NCvC-298-04/2021)

MAHANI CATHERINE BINTI HIJJAS (No. K/P: 700602-10-5692) [Selaku Pentadbir Estet Si Mati, RIZAL FARIS BIN MOHIDEEN ABDUL KADER] (No. K/P: 710320-07-5869)

MOHAMED SHAH ABDUL ALI (No. K/P: 710329-07-5611)

YAYASAN DPM PULAU PINANG BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 227502-X)

UMAR HAZZICH BIN RIZAL FARIS (No. K/P: 020830-07-0541) [Selaku Pentadbir Estet Si Mati, RIZAL FARIS BIN MOHIDEEN ABDUL KADER] (No. K/P: 710320-07-5869) DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

My grounds of judgment here pertain to the appeal lodged by the Plaintiff on a part of my decision in not ordering the Defendants to pay the RM6 million, i.e., the RM5 million of the PMO Fund and the RM1 million of the Redberry Fund. Nonetheless, to explain why I had made such a decision, the complete grounds of judgment are set out below, addressing all issues raised by the parties.

This action was brought by the Plaintiff in his capacity as Secretary General of Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia ("DPMM" or "DPMM Pusat"), for and on behalf of DPMM pursuant to S 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966, against the Defendants in respect of the alleged misappropriation of RM6 million belonging to DPMM.

The RM5 million allocated by the Prime Minister's Office through the Ministry of Finance ("PMO Fund") and RM1 million from Redberry Sdn Bhd ("Redberry Fund"), both channelled into the bank account of the 3rd Defendant, Yayasan DPM Pulau Pinang Berhad ("the Foundation" or "the 3rd Defendant").

The late Rizal Faris ("Rizal Faris") was the President of DPMM at the material time. He passed away on 14.2.2022 and was replaced by the 1st and 4th Defendants as administrators of his estate. The 2nd Defendant was DPMM's Treasurer General and also a director and trustee of the Yayasan.

The Plaintiff's case is that Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant diverted the PMO and Redberry Funds to the Yayasan without the DPMM's executive, the DPMM Executive Council ("MED") knowledge or approval, in contravention of Article 29.3 of DPMM's Constitution; that the funds were not utilised for their intended nationwide entrepreneurship purposes; that the Defendants breached their fiduciary and common law duties; and that they conspired to injure DPMM by unlawful means. The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, judgment for RM6 million, declarations of breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to injure, an order for account and inquiry, tracing, general damages, and exemplary damages.

The Defendants' case is that the MED gave Rizal Faris a mandate under Track 3 to manage programmes and fund distribution. Accordingly, the Yayasan's account was used because DPMM Pusat's foundation accounts were unavailable, and the Yayasan was linked to DPMM. They contend that the Redberry Fund was a private arrangement unconnected to DPMM, that the funds were properly spent on the I AM USAHAWAN: GO 4.0 programme in Langkawi and were audited, and that no criminal charges resulted despite police and the Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission (MACC) investigations.

The material period is January 2018 to May 2018. Seven witnesses were called, with two for the Plaintiff and five for the Defendants. On 5.5.2026, I allow the Plaintiff's claim with costs of the following orders:

(a) A declaration that Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant breached their fiduciary duties owed to DPMM by channelling the PMO Fund (RM5 million) and Redberry Fund (RM1 million) to the Yayasan's bank account without the knowledge, approval, or authorisation of the MED, in contravention of Article 29.3 of DPMM's Constitution.

(b) A declaration that the 3rd Defendant received and held the sum of RM6 million belonging to DPMM Pusat as constructive trustee.

(c) The 3rd Defendant shall return to DPMM Pusat the sum of RM60,000 retained as consolation （"saguhati"）without MED approval.

(d) An order for account and inquiry against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants for a full account of the receipt and utilisation of the RM6 million, with supporting documentation, to determine what sums were properly expended for the authorised purposes and what sums were improperly applied and are to be repaid to DPMM Pusat.

(e) An order for tracing of the PMO and Redberry Funds and their traceable proceeds.

(f) The 1st, 2nd, and 4th Defendants (as administrators of Rizal Faris's estate) and the 2nd Defendant are jointly and severally liable with the 3rd Defendant as constructive trustees for such sums as are found upon account and inquiry to have been improperly applied.

(g) The Consent Judgment dated 8.9.2025 shall remain in force pending completion of the account and inquiry.

(h) The Plaintiff's claim for personal misappropriation, conspiracy to injure, and exemplary damages is dismissed. General damages of RM50,000 (Rizal Faris) and RM30,000 (D2) for the breach of their fiduciary duties.

In reference to the Plaintiff's SOC dated 26.6.2024, which was amended the third time, Para 45 of the Reliefs did not seek for the Defendants to pay the RM5 million PMO Fund and the RM1 million Redberry Fund. There is no such prayer made by the Plaintiff for the return of the PMO Fund and Redberry Fund in whatsoever manner and to whoever. Para 45 of the amended SOC is reproduced below:

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, in his capacity as suing on behalf of DPMM, seeks the following reliefs against Rizal Paris and the Defendants: a1. A declaration that Rizal Faris together with the $ ^{2^{rd}} $ and $ ^{3^{rd}} $ Defendants are constructive trustees of for the sum of RM5,000,000 (the PMO Fund) and all profits arising thereof, for and on behalf of DPMM: b) A declaration that the Rizal Faris together with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are constructive trustees of for the sum of RM1.000.000 (the Redberry Fund) and all profits arising thereof for and on behalf of DPMM: c1 A declaration that the—of Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendante misappropriated the sum of RM 5.000.000 intended for DPMM in relation to the PMO Fund; d1 A declaration that the 4th Rizal Paris and the 2nd Defendante misappropriated the sum of RM 1,000,000 Intended for DPMM in relation to the Redberry Fund: g1 The sum of RM 6,000,000 be paid to DGMH as a joint and several basis by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in relation to the FMG Fund By reason of the said relief (a1 and (c1) above, that the estate of Rizal Faris namely the $ ^{1st}$ and $ ^{4th}$ Defendants together with the $ ^{2nd}$ and $ ^{3rd}$ Defendants are

An order shall not assume issuance but not limited to matters in the district's accounts, be issued to DMM within four months after issue from the date of this order.

2. An earlier for restitution, that, the defendant, to restitute all and any casual and of unrestricted profits and/or benefits another misrepresented sums, and now owes to the plaintiff within fourteen (3.4) days from the date of this order. An order that the documents and items removed by these from DPMM's office at the material time and thereafter, return all documents and items belonging to DPMM within 14 days from the date of this judgment; 10th. General damages as a result of the Second Federal Election and the 2nd Defence's breach of their fiduciary duties and common law duties. 11 General damages as a result of financial Earth, and the 2nd Dutility conspiracy; Gets an an indefinite basis against the $ 1^{st} $ $ 2^{nd} $ and $ 3^{rd} $ Defendable; Costs against the 8th Defendant; Exemplary Damages interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the damages awarded in prayers f1. The sum of RM 1,000,000 be paid to DPMM on a joint and cousal basis by the first and $ ^{3 rd} $ Defendants in relation to the Redberry Fund By reason of the said relief (b) and (d) above, that the estate of Rizal Faris, namely the $ ^{1 s1} $ and $ ^{4 rd} $ Defendants together with the $ ^{2 n d} $ and $ ^{3 rd} $ Defendants are liable on a joint and several basis to DPMM, for the sum of RM 1,000,000 in relation to the Redberry Fund; Q1 That the 3rd Defendant, by way of an affidavit affirmed by the directors of the 3rd Defendant at the material time, provide a full and detailed account to the Plaintiff's solicitors on the manner in which the sum of RM5,000,000, by virtue of the PMO Fund, and the sum of RM1,000,000, by virtue of the Redberry Fund, was utilised by the 3rd Defendant within 14 days from the date of this Judgment and for such tracing orders as may be necessary in aid thereof: A declaration that the Defendants hold as constructive trustee for and on behalf of DPMM, all and/or any prolite arising from the PMO Fund and/or the Redberry Fund; h1. A declaration that the assets including but not limited to the monies held in the 3rd Defendant's name is held on trust for and on behalf of DPMM; 11 An order that the 3rd Defendant through its directors namely the Defendants account for all monies and transactions in the 3rd Defendant's Account from 17.4.2016 until date of this Judgment: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and/or [6] respectively from the date of the filing of this action till the full and final settlement; and Such further and/or other reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper. --- Dated this 10th of September, 2021 Dated this 31st day of October 2023 Dated this 28 day of June 2024 Messrs. L. B. Sankar & B. Balan Shanthar Solidarity for the Maintain Mississippi State University Mississippi State University Masrara Lazania & Salam Chambers Solicitors for the Elmottt

The issues for determination are, firstly, whether Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant caused the PMO and Redberry Funds to be diverted to the 3rd Defendant without the knowledge and/or approval of the MED. Also, whether the funds were utilised for their intended purpose, and whether Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant breached their fiduciary duties and/or common law duties owed to DPMM. Lastly, whether Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant conspired to injure DPMM by unlawful means. A threshold question pervading all issues is: Has the Plaintiff proved that the RM6 million was misappropriated for the personal benefit of Rizal Faris and/or the 2nd Defendant? Preliminary Finding: DPMM Pusat And DPMM Pulau Pinang Are Separate Entities

DPMM and its regional state branches serve as the apex trustee body dedicated to defending and advancing the economic interests of Malay entrepreneurs. Operating at both national and grassroots levels, DPMM serves as a critical conduit for integrating local businesses into broader commercial ecosystems. DPMM's primary focus is on policy advocacy, business capacity development, and expanding market access both domestically and internationally.

It operates as the official intermediary between the Malay business community and the government to influence national economic frameworks, tax policies, and commercial regulations. During periods of economic volatility, the chamber lobbies for mitigation plans, special financial allocations, and protective tariffs to safeguard local producers from global market imbalances. Its continuous collaboration with the government ensures that national economic empowerment initiatives effectively reach grassroots businesses.

State-level DPMM branches proactively identify regional business talent and provide the training needed to scale operational capacity. The chamber coordinates targeted workshops, financial planning sessions, and digital transformation initiatives to help traditional SMEs modernise. By facilitating executive mentorship and peer-to-peer forums, DPMM reduces early-stage commercial risks and fosters competitive corporate leadership. DPMM regularly facilitates localised networking platforms to bridge the gap between regional traders, major corporate suppliers, and federal procurement agencies. Through this interconnected framework, SMEs can overcome regional barriers and integrate into the broader macroeconomy. DPMM continues to accelerate international expansion and industrial networking by forming strategic bilateral partnerships and establishing targeted economic consortia. Locally, DPMM is actively driving commercial mobilisation through its specialised internal bodies, including the newly operational DPMM Solar Consortium and the DPMM Oil & Gas Consortium, which unite local businesses to secure high-value contracts in the renewable energy and heavy infrastructure sectors.

In 2018, the programs, initiatives, and internal operations of the DPMM and DPMM Pulau Pinang were defined by high-profile corporate transformation roadmaps, socio-economic community funding, and intense statutory restructuring. Launched on 29.1.2018 by then-Prime Minister Najib Razak, this Future Begins Tonight Strategic Roadmap program served as the corporate pivot point for DPMM. It established a modernised economic narrative tailored to advancing the industrial capabilities and digital footprint of Malay SMEs.

In April 2018, DPMM secured a RM5 million federal grant from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) for the Bumiputera Community Development Program Funding. The primary mandate of this allocation was to finance and deploy large-scale socioeconomic outreach programs designed to empower Malay entrepreneurial groups.

16. Due to deep operational and leadership shifts following the May 2018 general elections, their Annual General Meetings (AGMs) faced mandatory scheduling shifts. State-level branches were ordered to finalise their localised AGMs by 30.9.2018, culminating in a historic Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on 22.11.2018 to re-align institutional governance and leadership via the Institutional Governance Restructuring & AGMs.

The structural management of funds via the Foundation saw the RM5 million national allocation being directed to the Foundation to implement state-specific commercial and community enterprise programs. DPMM Pulau Pinang aligned itself with the broader state civil framework by participating in specialised Training of Trainers (TOT) Mentorship Programs that ran from June to December 2018. These sessions aimed to upskill professional corporate mentors to systematically guide emerging local startups and micro-businesses.

A central issue in this case is the relationship between DPMM Pusat, DPMM Pulau Pinang and the 3rd Defendant. The Defendants have characterised these entities as "interrelated" and argued that channelling funds from DPMM Pusat to the 3rd Defendant was akin to keeping the money "within the family."

The EGM on 22.11.2018, alongside the handling of the RM5 million federal allocation, created a pivotal and deeply contested chapter for both the national DPMM and its Pulau Pinang branch. The EGM was forced by a faction led by Deputy President Datuk Seri Syed Hussein Alhabshee ("Syed Hussein") after a civil action was filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The meeting yielded highly disruptive resolutions aimed at changing organisational leadership, whereby out of 92 voting delegates present, an overwhelming 89 voted in favour of a resolution to immediately strip Rizal Faris of his presidency. The delegates passed a resolution to officially install Syed Hussein as the Acting President of the DPMM. Sitting President Rizal Faris rejected the legitimacy of the EGM outright. He triggered Clause 27.2 and Clause 27.6.6 of the DPMM Constitution, asserting that the rogue members who initiated the court proceedings and EGM had automatically nullified their memberships, rendering the resolutions legally void in his faction's view. This triggered a severe constitutional deadlock that lasted well into the following year.

Alongside the legal battle, the RM5 million allocation, granted by the PMO in April/May 2018, just before the 14th General Election (GE14), became the catalyst for the internal conflict. Its structure bypassed traditional national protocols: instead of being deposited directly into the DPMM's main, centrally audited corporate bank accounts, the RM5 million was routed entirely into the Foundation's bank accounts. The Foundation was heavily controlled by the Penang branch and Rizal Faris.

The core issue raised by the executive council was that this structural diversion of funds occurred without the mandated overview or approval of the MED. The opposing factions inside the chamber had entirely conflicting explanations for how the funds were managed. The president's camp maintained that the money was earmarked for technical development-specifically to build an online digital business application to modernise Malay SMEs. Conversely, the opposing council produced official ministry letters proving the fund's layout was strictly meant to finance direct socioeconomic community programs for grassroots Malay entrepreneurs, leading to allegations of fund mismanagement and a subsequent police Commercial Crime investigation.

The internal warfare within the DPMM in 2018 involved two major escalations: a parallel financial scandal concerning the company Redberry, and a sweeping statutory intervention by the Registrar of Societies (RoS). Alongside the PMO's RM5 million foundation crisis, the RM1 million Redberry fund became the second primary trigger for the civil lawsuit filed on 13.9.2018. According to court filings submitted by Deputy President Syed Hussein and 17 executive council members, a sum of RM1 million was credited directly to DPMM from a media/communications company known as Redberry. The 18 plaintiffs discovered that then-President Rizal Faris had unilaterally allocated this entire RM1 million to finance election campaigns leading up to the GE14 in May 2018.

The core legal argument was that this massive political expenditure was authorised completely without the knowledge, consensus, or formal approval of the MED. When confronted by the council during an executive meeting on 31.5.2018, Rizal Faris failed to present a legitimate financial justification, prompting the council to pursue immediate legal redress to reclaim the missing corporate funds.

The administrative chaos of 2018 triggered intense external regulatory scrutiny, which ultimately caused the RoS to intervene aggressively to freeze the DPMM's operations. In a desperate attempt to delay internal oversight, the president's faction covertly wrote a letter to the RoS on 10.4.2018 requesting a special extension of time to host their mandatory AGM. This letter was drafted and sent without notifying the broader executive committee. Due to the deep fractures and competing factions (one led by Rizal Faris and the other by Syed Hussein), the chamber completely failed to submit clean, undisputed financial statements, valid leadership logs, and verified AGM protocols as required under the Societies Act 1966. Because of the blatant failure to resolve the constitutional gridlock and the contested legitimacy of the 22.11.2018 EGM, the RoS formally stepped in. Citing fatal compliance failures concerning their AGMs and internal leadership records from that specific period, the RoS officially suspended DPMM. This statutory freeze paralysed the entire national committee, barring them from executing official commercial duties until a clean leadership line could be validated.

Accordingly, based on the aforesaid historical event, I am unable to accept such conflation of these entities. The evidence establishes that DPMM Pusat is a national body registered under the Registrar of Societies, governing all DPMM state branches. While DPMM Pulau Pinang is a state branch registered separately under the Registrar of Societies (Penang Branch). While it is a branch of DPMM Pusat under the Constitution, it is a separate registered entity with its own registration, its own members, and its own governance. I find that the 3rd Defendant is a company limited by guarantee registered under the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), Company No. 227502-X. Under Clause 3 of its M&A, the sole member is "Dewan" as defined as DPMM Pulau Pinang. With that, the 3rd Defendant is therefore owned by DPMM Pulau Pinang and not by DPMM Pusat directly. DPMM Pulau Pinang and DPMM Pusat are separate entities in law.

PW1 was asked during cross-examination whether the Foundation was "milik DPMM Pusat." He answered: "Tak, tak setuju. Bukan secara langsung." When asked "Secara tidak langsung?" he answered "Ya." This distinction is important. An indirect relationship through a chain of affiliation does not make two entities one and the same in law.

The Defendants argue that DPMM Pusat does not have members directly, where only the state branches have members, and that the four companies identified by the Plaintiff (Gemilang 4E, Eastcape Vista, Pengurusan Kemudahan DPM, Borneo Pets World) are members of DPMMPP. This submission in fact reinforces the Court's finding: if DPMM Pusat and DPMM Pulau Pinang have different membership structures, they are plainly distinct entities. The fact that certain companies are members of DPMM Pulau Pinang, not DPMM Pusat, underscores rather than undermines the separate legal personality of each entity.

The consequence of this finding is significant: funds belonging to DPMM Pusat that were channelled to the 3rd Defendant (an entity owned by the separate entity DPMM Pulau Pinang) were channelled outside DPMM Pusat. The money went out of DPMM Pusat's control and came into the custody of a separate legal entity. The fact that the entities share a common affiliation under the DPMM umbrella does not collapse the legal distinction between them. Under Article 29.3 of DPMM's Constitution, DPMM Pusat's funds must be deposited into a bank account approved by the MED. The Yayasan's bank account was never approved by the MED for this purpose. The channelling of RM6 million to the Yayasan without MED approval was therefore a breach of Article 29.3. THE APPLICABLE LAWS Burden and Standard of Proof

Under ss 101-103 of the Evidence Act 1950 ("EA 1950"), the Plaintiff bears the legal burden throughout of proving its case on a balance of probabilities. Once sufficient evidence is adduced, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants (see: Dato Pardip Kumar v Vell Paari [2016] 4 MLJ 649 CA; Letchumanan Chettiar v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418 FC; Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi v Kerajaan Malaysia [2016] 2 CLJ 885 FC).

The Defendants cite Dato' Seri Yong Tu Sang & Ors v Dato' Chang Jong Yu & Ors [2026] MLRHU 487 HC for the proposition that the burden does not shift to the defendant. This is a correct statement of the legal burden. However, it must be distinguished from the evidential burden: once the Plaintiff adduces sufficient evidence demonstrating diversion and breach, the Defendants as the fiduciaries who controlled the funds and documents, bear the evidential burden of providing a credible explanation supported by primary documents (see: Lilies Suraya Bt Abdul Latib & Ors v Khairul Bin Sabri & Others [2019] 1 LNS 2099 HC). Fiduciary Duties of Office Bearers

Office bearers of a society stand in a fiduciary relationship with the society (Ng Tien & Anor v Chow Nim Yan [1990] 3 MLJ 373 SC). However, breach of fiduciary duty of misappropriation requires proof that the fiduciary acted in bad faith or for personal benefit. The test has a subjective element namely whether the director honestly believed he was acting in the entity's best interests (Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra v Petra Perdana Berhad [2018] 1 MLRA HC; Regentcrest Plc (in liquidation) v Cohen and another [2001] BCC 494).

The Defendants rely extensively on Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra for the subjective test. I accept this principle. However, the subjective test protects directors who act honestly within their powers. It does not protect fiduciaries who channel funds to entities they control without constitutional authorisation and without disclosing material conflicts of interest. The subjective test applies to the exercise of discretion within the scope of authorised powers. It cannot excuse acts done outside the scope of those powers altogether. Contemporaneous Documentary Evidence

Where contemporaneous documentary evidence exists, it carries greater probative value over oral testimony (Jayandran a/I Subramaniam v Rajaprakash a/I Raghavan & Ors [2025] MLJU 3850 CA; Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229 FC).

Audited statements of account without underlying books and supporting documents are insufficient to prove their contents (Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v Direct Interest Sdn Bhd [2007] 2 MLJ 229 CA; KPM Khidmat Sdn Bhd v Tey Kim Suie [1994] 2 MLJ 627 SC).

It is undisputed that the PMO Fund belonged to DPMM Pusat and was intended for DPMM's nationwide I AM USAHAWAN programme. DW2 confirmed this by noting that the PMO Fund was recorded as "Other Incomes" in DPMM's audited financial statements. DW4 confirmed the allocation was for DPMM. The 2nd Defendant agreed.

The Defendants' pleaded position that the Redberry Fund was a private arrangement between Kelab Peminat Kucing Malaysia and Redberry is contradicted by the contemporaneous documentary evidence namely the letter from Kelab Peminat Kucing Malaysia to Redberry dated 2.2.2018 stated that Bustana Kucing and LOKA initiatives were organised in collaboration with DPMM; the Rizal Faris's letter dated 10.4.2018 stated that any surplus would be generated as income for DPMM; the Rizal Faris's letter to the 3rd Defendant dated 16.4.2018 referred to the Redberry Fund as being for "Pelan Mobilisasi 6 Bulan DPMM" with surplus to be remitted to DPMM Pusat; together with DW2 who confirmed the Redberry Fund belonged to DPMM Pusat and was recorded as a sum owed by the 3rd Defendant to DPMM Pusat, not as the Yayasan's income.

I find that the Redberry Fund belonged to DPMM. The Defendants' own auditor and their own documentary evidence contradict their pleaded position. Notably, the Defendants in their Reply Submission have conspicuously failed to address this pleaded defence of "private arrangement" at all, amounting to an abandonment of that defence.

The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the MED was not informed of or asked to approve the channelling of either fund to the 3rd Defendant. I found that DW3 confirmed the PMO and Redberry letters were not shown to MED members, were not disclosed at any MED meeting from February to May 2018, and were not disclosed even at the MED discussion on 11.5.2018. PW1 testified that there were multiple meetings at which disclosure could have been made but was not. The existence of the funds was only discovered at the MED meeting on 31.5.2018, when MED members raised questions. The "Mandate" and "Blanket Approval" Defence

The Defendants argue that the MED meetings of 9.1.2018 and 28.2.2018 gave Rizal Faris a mandate under Track 3 encompassing programmes and fund distribution. Both PW1 and PW2 confirmed during cross-examination that the minutes recorded the MED's agreement to the Mobilisation Plan and Track 3 leadership by Rizal Faris, with no objection.

The Defendants place significant weight on this point by relying on Bukit Kiara Resort Bhd v Dato Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2012] 2 MLJ 783 HC for the proposition that uncorrected minutes are accepted as accurately reflecting what occurred (see: David Wong Hon Leong v Noorazman bin Adnan (1995) 3 MLJ 283 CA); and Boustead Trading Sdn Bhd (1985) v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad (1995) MLRA 738 FC for the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. Their argument is that since no MED member objected to Track 3 at the time, the Plaintiff is now estopped from challenging the mandate.

However, I find that agreement to a general mobilisation framework cannot constitute approval for the specific channelling of RM6 million to the 3rd Defendant. I find that agreement to a general mobilisation framework, including delegation of Track 3 to Rizal Faris, cannot constitute approval for the specific channelling of RM6 million to a particular entity, more so one that is a separate legal entity from DPMM Pusat.

I have carefully considered these authorities but find that they do not assist the Defendants for the following reasons:

(a) The mandate defence was never pleaded. The Defence was amended three times. At no point was it pleaded that the MED had given Rizal Faris a mandate to channel funds to the Yayasan. The Defendants argue that under Order 18 Rule 7 ROC 2012, only material facts and not evidence need to be pleaded, and that the "two minutes" were material facts sufficiently pleaded. With respect, I am unable to agree. The distinction between a general agreement to a mobilisation plan and a specific mandate to channel RM6 million to a particular entity is not a matter of evidence versus fact. It is a fundamentally different material fact. Evidence which represents a radical departure from pleadings as opposed to a mere variation or development cannot cure the defect (Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, 4th Division & Anor v Hamit B. Matusin & Ors [1994] 3 CLJ 567 SC). When a party's oral evidence deviates from his pleaded defence, his account must be regarded as suspect (Abdul Rahman Abdul Karim v Abdul Wahab Abdul Hamid [1996] 2 CLJ 455 HC).

(b) The minutes record a notification, not a decision. The reference in the 28.2.2018 minutes to Track 3 as "medium penyaluran dana" appears under the heading of the President's presentation (pemakluman/ pembentangan), not under any decision entry. PW2 made this critical distinction during cross-examination, explaining that where a decision is made in MED meetings, it is expressly recorded under a "keputusan" entry identifying the person tasked with implementation. PW2 pointed to other agenda items in the same minutes where such "keputusan" entries appear, and contrasted them with the Track 3 reference which contains no such entry. PW2 testified: "Keputusan mesyuarat itu adalah very specific. Dia tidak general in nature." And further: "Untuk saya mempersetujui kenyataan bahawa presiden diberikan mandat khusus, itu tidak ada dalam minit mesyuarat ini. Dia hanya memberikan pembentangan sahaja dan mesyuarat bersetuju dengan pelan tersebut." In Bukit Kiara, the uncorrected minutes are taken as accurate cuts both ways. The minutes accurately record that Track 3 was presented and agreed to in general terms. But the minutes do not record any decision authorising the channelling of specific funds to a specific entity. Accepting the minutes as accurate therefore confirms the Plaintiff's position: that a general plan was agreed, but no specific mandate was given.

(c) The absence of objection does not constitute informed consent. The Defendants contend that because no MED member objected to Track 3, a mandate was conferred. This is misconceived. The material facts relating to the channelling and utilisation of the PMO and Redberry Funds were never disclosed to the MED in the first place. In the absence of full and frank disclosure, no question of informed consent or approval can arise. One cannot consent to what one does not know. The estoppel argument under Boustead Trading is equally inapplicable. In Boustead Trading, the party had received specific documents (endorsed invoices) and failed to object for over seven months. Here, MED members never received the PMO or Redberry Fund correspondence, were never told of the proposed channelling to the Yayasan, and therefore had nothing to object to. Estoppel requires a representation relied upon, but the MED members were never informed of the specific channelling and therefore made no representation regarding it. The estoppel defence is also unpleaded.

(d) The 2nd Defendant could not substantiate the mandate. When pressed during cross-examination, the 2nd Defendant was unable to point to anything in the minutes of the 28.2.2018 meeting evidencing the purported mandate. He answered "Saya tak pasti" when asked whether the MED had agreed for the funds to be channelled to any foundation or DPMM state account. If such a mandate existed, it would have been raised by Rizal Faris or the 2nd Defendant at the 31.5.2018 MED meeting when MED members expressed anger about the funds. Neither Rizal Faris nor the 2nd Defendant ever invoked any such mandate at that contemporaneous meeting. This is telling. This is telling as the so-called mandate was never once raised as a defence or justification at the contemporaneous meeting when the issue first arose.

(e) Article 29.3 is mandatory. The Defendants submit that Article 29.3 refers only to "daily operations" concerning opening and closing of accounts, particularly administrative funds. I am unable to accept this interpretation. Article 29.3 provides that "semua wang Dewan atau DPMM Negeri mestilah disimpan di dalam Bank yang dipersetujui oleh MED." The language is unqualified — "semua wang" means all monies. There is no basis in the text to limit this provision to administrative funds. Even if a general delegation existed under Track 3, it could not override the specific constitutional requirement that DPMM's funds be deposited into a bank account approved by the MED. DW3 himself confirmed this during cross-examination.

The Defendants' further attempt to characterise the alleged mandate as giving rise to an estoppel by conduct is equally unsustainable. This defence is not pleaded and amounts to an afterthought. In the absence of any proven representation and reliance where the MED members were never informed of the specific channelling, the doctrine of estoppel does not arise. Moreover, the "blanket approval" defence advanced through DW3 was never pleaded. The Defence was amended three times without this defence being raised. A party may not depart mid-stream from its pleaded case (see: Clearpath Marketing Sdn Bhd v Malayan Banking Bhd [2019] MLJU 100 CA; Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Jalinan Waja Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 MLJ 322 CA). DW3 himself conceded that the MED was never specifically informed of the PMO and Redberry Funds or the proposed channelling to the 3rd Defendant. The "PM's Mandatory Requirement"

The Defendants pleaded at para 31 of the Defence that the channelling was a "mandatory requirement" of the Prime Minister. But, the Defendants failed to address this pleaded defence at all. In their Reply Submission, the Defendants attempt to characterise this as an amendment to witness statements rather than a change in the pleaded defence, arguing that Rizal Faris (who has since passed away) was the one who instructed the lawyers to plead this, and that DW1 and DW5 had no personal knowledge of this matter.

This explanation is unsatisfactory. The "mandatory requirement" was a pleaded fact in the Amended Defence and not merely a witness statement. The 2nd Defendant himself admitted he did not instruct his solicitors to make this claim. DW4 conceded the alleged mandatory requirement was not true. The Defence was amended three times, and this allegation survived all amendments. It was not an inadvertent inclusion. Its subsequent abandonment in submissions undermines the Defendants' overall credibility. The Redberry "Private Arrangement"

Similarly, the Defendants pleaded at para 40 of the Defence that the Redberry Fund was a "Private Arrangement" between Kelab Peminat Kucing Malaysia and Redberry with no connection to DPMM. Despite this being a central plank of their Defence, there is a complete absence of any submission on this issue in the Defendants' Submission or Reply Submission. The Defendants' silence amounts to an abandonment. In any event, the contemporaneous documentary evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Redberry Fund belonged to DPMM. The contemporaneous documentary evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Redberry Fund belonged to DPMM.

I find on a balance of probabilities that Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant caused the PMO and Redberry Funds totalling RM6 million belonging to DPMM Pusat, to be channelled to the 3rd Defendant (a separate legal entity owned by DPMMPP) without the knowledge, approval, or authorisation of the MED, in breach of Article 29.3.

I accept that the I AM USAHAWAN: GO 4.0 programme was conducted in Langkawi. DW3 described three programme components. Documentary, photographic, and video evidence was tendered. DW4 confirmed attending the programme twice. The PMO Fund was allocated for DPMM's entrepreneurship programmes "throughout the country." The Redberry Fund was for Bustana Kucing and LOKA initiatives nationwide. These purposes were confirmed by DW2, DW3, DW4, and the 2nd Defendant.

The Defendants' own pleaded case is that the funds were utilised only in Langkawi. The 2nd Defendant maintained this during re-examination and confirmed under cross-examination: "Tetapi En. Shah mengatakan bahawa jumlah RM5 juta itu semuanya telah digunakan dalam Program Telaga Walk di Langkawi, betul?" — "Betul." The Defendants submitted that there is no contradiction on this point since the RM5 million was spent entirely in Langkawi. This represents a departure from the nationwide purpose for which the funds were allocated.

The evidence further establishes that the Langkawi programme had significant political dimensions. DW4 conceded the fund was not solely for entrepreneur development, acknowledging its proximity to the general election. The 2nd Defendant confirmed that Rizal Faris stated at the 31.5.2018 MED meeting that the funds were used for political purposes, and admitted the PMO Fund was used to gain support for the Prime Minister's government. This included cosplay, concerts, and beauty pageants. As confirmed by DW3, it was inconsistent with an entrepreneurship programme.

I make a critical distinction here. The Plaintiff has not adduced evidence that any part of the RM6 million was channelled to the personal bank accounts of Rizal Faris or the 2nd Defendant or used for their personal enrichment. PW2, when asked directly whether there was proof of funds being diverted to personal accounts, answered: "Itu, tak ada pengetahuan."

However, the absence of personal enrichment does not mean the funds were properly utilised. The funds were allocated for specific purposes, namely the nationwide entrepreneurship programmes and Bustana Kucing/LOKA initiatives nationwide. The evidence establishes that the funds were instead concentrated on a single programme in Langkawi with substantial political content. This constitutes utilisation for purposes other than those for which the funds were allocated to DPMM, even if the funds were not personally pocketed.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to examine the vouchers handed to the Investigating Officer (IO), failed to subpoena the IO, and failed to produce the forensic audit report. I address these arguments hereafter.

The utilisation of the funds was unilaterally controlled by Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant. DW3 confirmed he was not involved in vendor selection and that vendor appointments and payments were not disclosed to or deliberated by the MED. The 2nd Defendant and Rizal Faris were the sole signatories of the 3rd Defendant's account.

While the Defendants rely on the audited financial statements, DW2 admitted the audit was a normal financial audit (not forensic), conducted on a "sample-basis method," and that the audit work was carried out by his staff rather than by him personally. Audited accounts without supporting documents do not prove their contents (see: Sony Electronics; KPM Khidmat). The original vouchers and supporting documents were handed to the police and were never produced before this Court.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff failed during cross-examination to impeach the credibility of DW2 (the auditor) or contradict the audit methods used. While DW2 was not shown to have acted dishonestly, his evidence does not overcome the Sony Electronics legal principle that audited accounts without underlying supporting documents are insufficient to prove their contents. The issue is not DW2's credibility but the sufficiency of audited accounts standing alone. The Defendants' Inconsistent Evidence on Expenses Reports

The Defendants' own evidence on accountability is riddled with contradictions. DW1 and the 2nd Defendant testified that a presentation on the expenses and utilisation of the funds was to be made at a MED meeting on 1.8.2018 but that MED members walked out before it could be made. The 2nd Defendant then contradicted himself by testifying that an expenses report was in fact presented. He initially claimed it was presented at the August 2018 meeting, then at an AGM in November 2018, and again in 2019. However, when pressed during cross-examination, the 2nd Defendant was unable to point to any MED minutes, expenses report, or documentary record evidencing any such presentation. He repeatedly answered "Tak pasti" and "Dalam bundle saya tak pasti." His ultimate answer — "Ya, semua laporan perbelanjaan saya dah bagi kat polis" does not explain why the report was not produced through the Defendants' own solicitors for these proceedings. It is clearly an afterthought that does not explain why the report was not produced through the Defendants' own solicitors for these proceedings, particularly given the gravity of the allegations.

I find that while the programme was conducted and the funds were expended (rather than personally pocketed), the utilisation was not in accordance with the purposes for which the funds were allocated to DPMM. The funds were intended for nationwide programmes but were used only in Langkawi, with substantial political content, and without proper disclosure to the MED. This constitutes a misapplication of DPMM's funds, though not personal misappropriation.

It is undisputed that Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant, as President and Treasurer General, owed fiduciary duties to DPMM including duties to act in good faith, avoid conflicts of interest, not obtain unauthorised benefits, and ensure funds were properly accounted for and utilised for intended purposes (see: Ng Tien). The 2nd Defendant did not dispute these duties.

I find the following breaches of fiduciary duty are established:

(a) Unauthorised channelling of funds to a separate entity without MED approval-Article 29.3 was breached. Yayasan is a separate legal entity owned by DPMM Pulau Pinang, itself a separate registered entity from DPMM Pusat. Channelling RM6 million of DPMM Pusat's funds to the Yayasan without MED approval was a breach of the duty to comply with the Constitution and to act within the scope of authorised powers.

(b) Conflict of interest-Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant were simultaneously office bearers of DPMM Pusat and directors/trustees of the Yayasan. They caused DPMM Pusat's funds to be channelled to an entity they controlled, without disclosing this conflict to the MED. The principle in Tengku Abdullah Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar & Ors v Mohd Latiff bin Shah Mohd [1996] 2 MLJ 265 CA applies where fiduciaries must disclose conflicts, and failure to do so constitutes breach. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to prove funds were transferred to the four related companies (Gemilang 4E, Eastcape Vista, Pengurusan Kemudahan DPM, Borneo Pets World) and that if Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant had mala fide, they would not have openly stated that the funds would go to the 3rd Defendant's account. I accept that no evidence was adduced of funds flowing directly to these four companies. However, the conflict of interest finding does not depend on proving that funds reached these entities. The conflict arises from the undisclosed dual roles being simultaneously office bearers of DPMM Pusat who directed funds to the Yayasan, and being directors/trustees of the Yayasan who received those funds. The network of related entities demonstrates overlapping control that was never disclosed to the MED. As for the transparency argument, the letters were written by Rizal Faris to himself (in his dual capacities) and to the Yayasan controlled by the 2nd Defendant, which were never shown to the MED.

(c) Non-disclosure-Multiple MED meetings were held between April and May 2018 at which the existence of the PMO and Redberry Funds, and their channelling to the Yayasan, were never disclosed. This deprived the MED of the opportunity to deliberate upon and regulate the use of DPMM's funds.

(d) Misapplication of funds-The funds were utilised for purposes other than those for which they were allocated where they were concentrated in Langkawi with political content instead of nationwide entrepreneurship programmes.

(e) The RM60,000 consolation ("saguhati")- The 2nd Defendant requested and retained RM60,000 from the funds as a nominal payment for managing the Yayasan's accounts containing DPMM's money. When asked to produce proof of MED approval, he was unable to do so. An unsupported assertion carries no weight (see: Teh Chai Peng v Fiesta Untung Sdn Bhd [2026] MLJU 461 HC). If the funds were DPMM Pusat's money merely held by the Yayasan for operational convenience, there was no basis for the Yayasan to charge DPMM for holding its own money.

I find, however, that the Plaintiff has not established personal misappropriation, that is, the diversion of DPMM's funds to the personal bank accounts or personal benefit of Rizal Faris or the 2nd Defendant. No bank statements, asset records, or other evidence was produced to show personal enrichment. PW2 admitted having no knowledge of any such diversion.

What is established is breach of fiduciary duty in the nature of misapplication (channelling funds to a separate entity without authorisation and utilising them for purposes other than intended) rather than personal misappropriation (taking funds for one's own benefit).

The Plaintiff admitted that a forensic audit was conducted but did not produce the report. The Defendants invoke s 114(g) EA 1950 and press this point strongly. In my view, the forensic audit report, if produced, may not have found evidence of personal misappropriation. This is consistent with my finding that personal misappropriation is not established.

But, the Plaintiff's witnesses explained that the forensic audit could not be finalised because the underlying documents were unavailable as the documents have since been removed by the 2nd Defendant and/or handed to the police. In these circumstances, the adverse inference is qualified. More importantly, even drawing this inference, it does not exonerate the Defendants from the procedural and governance breaches established above that a financial or forensic audit showing that money was spent on programme activities does not address whether MED approval was obtained or whether the funds were used for their intended nationwide purpose.

No criminal charges were preferred despite police and MACC investigations. The Defendants rely on this in both their Written Submission to support their case. However, the existence or absence of criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the determination of civil liability. The fact that no prosecution was initiated, or that the MACC concluded as No Further Action (NFA), does not bar civil remedies. Civil and criminal proceedings operate under different standards of proof and address different questions. The NFA letters are irrelevant and immaterial.

The Defendants contend vigorously that the Plaintiff should have subpoenaed the IO and the vouchers held by police for adverse inferences. I have considered this submission carefully.

DPMM's case is founded on contemporaneous documentary evidence and oral testimony, not the IO's evidence. The Plaintiff's case on diversion without MED approval, breach of Article 29.3, conflict of interest, and non-disclosure does not depend on the vouchers or the IO. These matters are established through the MED minutes, the contemporaneous correspondence, and the admissions of the Defendants' own witnesses.

If the Defendants considered the IO's evidence necessary to support their assertions, particularly to show that the documents handed to the police were properly utilised. It was incumbent upon the Defendants to call or subpoena him. The Defendants' failure to produce the relevant vouchers, payment records, and supporting documentation only reinforces DPMM's case that the transactions were not properly supported by contemporaneous records. It is the Defendants, as fiduciaries entrusted with control of the funds and documents, who bear the obligation to maintain and produce supporting records. Their failure to do so warrants an adverse inference against them, not against the Plaintiff.

The audited accounts show that RM5,933,792.00 was expended and a balance remained. While this demonstrates expenditure occurred, audited accounts without underlying supporting documents do not prove the propriety of each transaction. The original vouchers are with the police. The audit was conducted on a sample basis. The auditor did not personally conduct the audit work. The existence of expenditure does not establish that it was for the authorised purposes.

DW4 confirmed that he saw no violations of the rules and received no complaints. While DW4 is a credible witness with no personal interest in the dispute, his perspective is that of the fund provider, not the MED whose approval was required under DPMM's Constitution. DW4's satisfaction with the channelling arrangement does not substitute for MED approval under Article 29.3. The question before this Court is not whether the fund provider was satisfied, but whether DPMM's own constitutional requirements were complied with.

Once the Plaintiff has adduced contemporaneous documentary and oral evidence demonstrating the diversion and utilisation of the PMO and Redberry Funds, and shown that the relevant records were at all material times within the custody and control of Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants to provide a credible explanation supported by primary documents (see: Lilies Suraya). The Defendants have failed to discharge this evidential burden.

Having found breaches of fiduciary duty in the form of unauthorised channelling and misapplication, Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant are accountable as constructive trustees in respect of the funds (see: Ng Tien), applying Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (a bankrupt) (No 3) [1968] 2 All ER 1073). The 3rd Defendant, as the entity which received and held DPMM Pusat's funds, is liable to account for those funds.

Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant breached their fiduciary duties owed to DPMM by channelling RM6 million to a separate legal entity without MED approval. They both failed to disclose the conflict of interest, withheld material information from the MED, and had permitted the funds to be utilised for purposes other than intended. However, personal misappropriation for personal enrichment is not established.

The elements of conspiracy by unlawful means require an agreement, acts done pursuant to it to injure the plaintiff, and resulting damage (Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 MLJ 394 CA).

The coordinated actions of Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant are self-serving correspondence, the channelling of funds, and the systematic exclusion of the MED, which are all consistent with a concerted action. However, conspiracy to injure requires proof that the acts were done with intent to injure DPMM. The correspondence expressly provided for surplus to be returned to DPMM Pusat. The programme was conducted under DPMM's name. The funds remained in an entity linked to the DPMM ecosystem.

While the conduct was improper and breached fiduciary duties, I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant acted pursuant to an agreement intended to injure DPMM. The more probable inference is that they acted to expedite programme delivery through a channel they controlled, albeit improperly and without proper authorisation. Poor governance and self-dealing are not necessarily the same as conspiracy to injure. The Plaintiff's conspiracy claim is dismissed.

I have considered the credibility of all witnesses. The 2nd Defendant was at times evasive and gave contradictory evidence on matters including the PM's mandatory requirement, the MED's approval, the political purpose of the programme, and the expense reports. DW1's evidence was in parts unsubstantiated.

The Defendants cite Dato Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232 FC and Premalla a/p Navanthapany Samy v Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co (a firm) & Anor [2024] 4 MLJ 635 CA for the proposition that demeanour and credibility are matters for the trial judge. I accept this principle, and I have exercised that jurisdiction. My assessment is that the 2nd Defendant was evasive and contradictory, consistent with the indicators in UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd [2018] supp MLJ 363 FC and Muhammad Shabir bin Abd Kadir v Petroliam Nasional Bhd [2025] MLJU 3880 HC.

But the Plaintiff's witnesses also had limitations. PW2 was not present at the 28.2.2018 MED meeting and admitted significant gaps in knowledge, including no knowledge of personal enrichment by the Defendants. DW4, who had no personal interest in the dispute, provided credible evidence on the allocation of the PMO Fund. Overall, I rely primarily on the contemporaneous documentary evidence, which is more reliable than oral testimony (see: Tindok Besar). LIABILITY AND REMEDIES The Yayasan's Liability

The Yayasan received RM6 million belonging to DPMM Pusat. DPMM Pusat and the Yayasan are separate legal entities. The Yayasan received DPMM Pusat's funds without MED authorisation and is liable to account for and return those funds to DPMM Pusat. The Yayasan's audited financial statements record that RM5,933,792 was expended and a balance of RM70,115.05 remained (of which RM60,000 was requested as "saguhati"). As at the date of the Injunction Order, the Yayasan's Bank Islam account held RM591,998.83.

However, the Plaintiff has not established that the expenditure of RM5,933,792 was entirely wasted or resulted in no benefit to DPMM. A programme was conducted under DPMM's name. The proper remedy is an order for an account and inquiry to determine which sums were properly expended for DPMM's authorised purposes and which were not. Liability of Rizal Faris's Estate and the 2nd Defendant

Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant breached their fiduciary duties by channelled DPMM Pusat's funds to the 3rd Defendant without MED approval and by permitting their use for purposes other than intended. As constructive trustees, they are jointly and severally liable with the Yayasan for such sums as are found, upon account and inquiry, to have been improperly applied. However, I decline to order judgment for the full RM6 million against Rizal Faris's estate and the 2nd Defendant personally, as the Plaintiff has not proved personal misappropriation. Their liability is as constructive trustees who improperly dealt with DPMM's funds by channelling them to a separate entity, not as persons who pocketed the money. Conspiracy

For the reasons stated above, the conspiracy claim is dismissed. There is no appeal on this decision.

The RM60,000 retained by the Yayasan as a "saguhati" was not approved by MED. There was no basis for the Yayasan to charge for holding DPMM Pusat's own money. This sum is to be returned to DPMM Pusat. An order for account and inquiry is granted against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants for full accounts of all sums received by the Yayasan from or attributable to the PMO Fund and Redberry Fund together with all expenditure from those funds, with supporting documentation; and identification of any sums not properly expended for the authorised purposes of the I AM USAHAWAN programme and Bustana Kucing/LOKA initiatives.

The account and inquiry are the most appropriate remedy where there has been breach of fiduciary duty and the extent of improperly applied funds cannot be precisely quantified without examination of the underlying records. The Defendants are directed to take all necessary steps to retrieve the original supporting documents from the police for the purposes of the account.

I order tracing in respect of the PMO and Redberry Funds, to identify the traceable proceeds of those funds in the hands of the Yayasan or otherwise (Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 HOL; Takako Sakao (f) v Ng Pek Yuen (f) & Anor [2009] 6 MLJ 751 FC).

General damages are allowed for item (m) of the Reliefs prayed for, i.e. the breach of fiduciary duties as found by this Court. As with general damages, the extent of DPMM's loss under this limb of damages is not ascertainable upon completion of the account and inquiry. The Plaintiff is awarded RM50,000 payable by Rizal Faris (now D1/D2/D4) and RM30,0000 by the $ ^{2^{nd}} $ Defendant.

I decline to award exemplary damages. While the conduct of Rizal Faris and the 2nd Defendant involved governance failures and breach of fiduciary duties, the Plaintiff has not established the level of mala fide, personal enrichment, or cynical profit-making contemplated by the second category of Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129. The conduct is more properly characterised as poor governance and selfdealing through related entities than as calculated profiteering at DPMM's expense.

I draw an adverse inference under s 114(g) EA 1950 in respect of the non-production of the forensic audit report. This inference supports the finding that personal misappropriation is not established, but does not affect the findings on procedural breach, conflict of interest, non-disclosure, and misapplication. I also draw the same adverse inference against the Defendants for their failure to produce the original vouchers, payment records, expense reports, and supporting documentation, despite these being within their custody and control. As the fiduciaries who controlled the funds and bore the obligation to account, they are properly held to account for their failure to produce primary supporting documents.

The Consent Judgment dated 8.9.2025 restraining the Defendants from dealing with RM591,998.83 in the Yayasan's Bank Islam account shall remain in force pending completion of the account and inquiry. The parties recognise that the dissolution issue concerning DPMM state branches (including DPMM Pulau Pinang) is the subject of judicial review. Dated: 30 July 2026 Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court NCvC 8 Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Plaintiff Counsel: Ms. Lavinia Kumaraendran (together with her Mr. Azhad Jamaluddin) Messrs Lavania & Balan Chambers Kuala Lumpur Tel. No.: 03-2704 5173 Email: advisory@lbchambers.com.my azhad@lbchambers.com.my Defendant Counsel: Mr. Muhammad Hafiz Wan Zawawi (together with him Pn. Yuslinov Ahmad) Messrs Afifah, Wan & Aimi Shazwani Selangor Tel. No.: 03-5021 9382 Email: awas.advocates@gmail.com Cases referred: Dato Pardip Kumar v Vell Paari [2016] 4 MLJ 649 CA Letchumanan Chettiar v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418 FC Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi v Kerajaan Malaysia [2016] 2 CLJ 885 FC Ng Tien & Anor v Chow Nim Yan [1990] 3 MLJ 373 SC Dato' Seri Yong Tu Sang & Ors v Dato' Chang Jong Yu & Ors [2026] MLRHU 487 HC Lilies Suraya Bt Abdul Latib & Ors v Khairul Bin Sabri & Others [2019] 1 LNS 2099 HC Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra v Petra Perdana Berhad [2018] 1 MLRA HC Regentcrest Plc v Cohen (a bankrupt) [2001] BCC 494 Jayandran a/l Subramaniam v Rajaprakash a/l Raghavan & Ors [2025] MLJU 3850 CA Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229 FC Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd v Direct Interest Sdn Bhd [2007] 2 MLJ 229 CA KPM Khidmat Sdn Bhd v Tey Kim Suie [1994] 2 MLJ 627 SC Bukit Kiara Resort Bhd v Dato Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2012] 2 MLJ 783 HC David Wong Hon Leong v Noorazman bin Adnan (1995) 3 MLJ 283 CA Boustead Trading Sdn Bhd (1985) v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad (1995) MLRA 738 FC Superintendent of Lands and Surveys, 4th Division & Anor v Hamit B. Matusin & Ors [1994] 3 CLJ 567 SC Abdul Rahman Abdul Karim v Abdul Wahab Abdul Hamid [1996] 2 CLJ 455 HC Clearpath Marketing Sdn Bhd v Malayan Banking Bhd [2019] MLJU 100 CA Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd v Jalinan Waja Sdn Bhd [2014] 2 MLJ 322 CA Tengku Abdullah Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar & Ors v Mohd Latiff bin Shah Mohd [1996] 2 MLJ 265 CA Teh Chai Peng v Fiesta Untung Sdn Bhd [2026] MLJU 461 HC Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 2 All ER 1073 Renault SA v Inokom Corp Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 MLJ 394 CA Dato Mokhtar Bin Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] 2 MLJ 232 FC Premalla a/p Navanthapany Samy v Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co (a firm) & Anor [2024] 4 MLJ 635 CA UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd [2018] supp MLJ 363 FC Muhammad Shabir bin Abd Kadir v Petroliam Nasional Bhd [2025] MLJU 3880 HC Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 HOL Takako Sakao (f) v Ng Pek Yuen (f) & Anor [2009] 6 MLJ 751 FC Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 Acts/Law referred S 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 Ss 101-103 of the Evidence Act 1950 Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 S 114(g) Evidence Act 1950