Moneysave (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Paragrene Land Berhad (WA-22NCC-522-08/2024)

PARAGRENE LAND BERHAD [Company No.: 199601027709]

GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM [Identity Card No.: 750227145603]

WAN NASIR BIN WAN MUSTAFHA [Identity Card No.: 750425035931]

ROZABIL @ ROZAMUJIB BIN ABDUL RAHMAN [Identity Card No.: 720308075363]

GRENEPARK VILLAGE SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 201301039849] …DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Enclosure 7 was the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment which this Court readily granted on 3.12.2024. Background Facts [2] The Plaintiff was a recognized market operator registered with the Malaysian Securities Commission under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA 2007”). [3] The Plaintiff operated a peer-to-peer (P2P) financing platform which was an electronic platform that facilitated directly and indirectly the production, execution and or offering of investment notes or Islamic investment notes. [4] Upon the request of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff as agent to the investors vide an offer dated 4.4.2023 (“Letter of Offer”) which was later accepted by the 1st Defendant, provided a financing facility amounting to RM 7,000,000.00 (“the Financing Facility”) on the terms and conditions stated in the Letter of Offer. [5] Subsequently, the facility was increased to RM 15,000,00.00 at the 1st Defendant’s request vide a Supplemental Letter of Offer dated 3.8.2023. [6] In respect of the aforesaid Financing Facility, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants agreed to act as guarantors and duly executed the Guarantee and Indemnity dated 6.4.2023 (“Guarantee and Indemnity”). On the same day, the Defendants executed an Investment Note Facility Agreement where at the 1st Defendant’s request as Issuer, the investors would provide and make available to the 1st Defendant through the Plaintiff’s electronic platform the Financing Facility. [7] Following thereto, the Financing Facility were disbursed by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant on the following dates: a) RM 7,000,000.00 on 10.4.2023; b) RM 3,500,000.00 on 8.8.2023; c) RM 4,000,000.00 on 8.8.2023. [8] The disbursements and receipts of the said facilities were acknowledged and documented in 3 Investment Note Certificates issued by the 1st Defendant. The repayments of the sums disbursed were stated in the Schedules to each of the Investment Note Certificates. [9] However, the Defendants failed to make any of the repayments notwithstanding demands being made by the Plaintiff. Triable Issues [10] The Defendants raised the following triable issues: a) The Plaintiff was not registered under the Moneylenders Act 1951 and the Investment Note Facility Agreement dated 6.4.2023 was in breach of the Moneylenders Act 1951 and therefore invalid and unenforceable (“the Moneylenders Act Issues”); b) The Defendants were not in breach of the Investment Note Facility Agreement (“the Non-Breach Issue”); c) The Defendants did not sign the Guarantee and Indemnity Agreement (“the Non-Signing Issue”); d) The Defendants did not receive the Notice of Default from the Plaintiff (“the Non-Receipt Issue”). Court’s Considerations [11] At the hearing of the Enclosure 7, the Defendants informed this Court of their decision to abandon the Moneylenders Act Issues. [12] As regards the Non-Breach Issue, save for a bare denial, the Defendants did not adduce any evidence at all to rebut the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendants had not made any repayments of the specified amounts on the specified dates under the payment schedule set out in the Investment Note Certificates which had been duly signed and issued by the 1st Defendant. No documentary proof of repayments of the amounts due to the Plaintiff under the Investment Note Certificates was produced before this Court. [13] As regards the Non-Signing Issue, the Plaintiff has produced before this Court a duly executed Indemnity and Guarantee by all the Defendants. However, apart from asserting that they did not sign the Indemnity and Guarantee, the Defendants did not produce any evidence that the signatures in the documents were not genuine and or authentic. No police reports were lodged to complain that the signatures in the Indemnity and Guarantee which were attributed to them were in fact forged. The Defendants also did not procure any hand writing analysis of the signatures to impugn the same. [14] As regards the Non-Receipt Issue, the Plaintiff had exhibited proof of service of their solicitors’ Notices of Default and demands for payment dated 13.6.2024 and 14.6.2024. These Notices of Default were duly served by way of email to all the Defendants at their respective email addresses as declared in the Investment Note Facility Agreement dated 6.4.2023. More specifically, Clause 14.1 provides that notices shall be served on the 1st Defendant at the address stated in the Schedule thereto and Clause 14.3 stipulates that such notices are deemed to be served within 7 days of posting and or immediately upon sending by email. Similarly, in the Guarantee and Indemnity dated 6.4.2023, Clause 4.1 stipulates that notices shall be served on the guarantors at their respective addresses stated in the Schedule thereto and the proof of posting shall be deemed as proof of receipt. Conclusion [15] Based on the aforesaid, it is the considered opinion of this Court that this was an apt case for summary judgment to be granted in favour of the Plaintiff as the Defendants had failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable issues to merit the claims to go for trial. Dated the 16th day of January 2025 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 & Admiralty Counsel:

Mr. Lee Min Choon together with Ms. Nur Jannatul Adilla for Plaintiff

Ms. Sara Anne Lee Xin for Defendants

Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 2.