Queck Han Tiong v Neo Ching Yuen (WA-22NCC-129-02/2026)

NEO CHING YUEN (No. K/P: 770707-02-5537)

RIGHT PRISTINE MANPRO SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200901019226 [862323-V])

RP DORMITORY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201401009019 [1085097-K]) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 18)

In this action, the Plaintiff claims that the 1st Defendant had orchestrated a fraudulent investment scheme involving the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, companies he controlled. The Plaintiff applied for, inter alia, an order to freeze the assets of the 1st Defendant pending S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw trial to recover RM13.64 million the Plaintiff claims to have lost (“Mareva Injunction”). Background facts

The Plaintiff and 1st Defendant were neighbours at Baystar Condominium in Penang. According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce him to participate in an investment scheme involving the listing of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the Taipei stock exchange (“IPO”). Although the precise particulars of the alleged scheme remain unclear, it apparently entailed: a) the Plaintiff extending 6 friendly loans to the 1st Defendant, remitted over 28-8-2020, 20-11-2020, 7-12-2020 and 28-12- 2020 totalling RM17.66 million and repayable in 3 years (“Loan Agreements No. 1 to 6” respectively); and b) the Plaintiff subscribing to 1 million in the shares of Kujaya Management Sdn Bhd for RM1 million (which he did on 25-11- 2020), to be repurchased by the 1st Defendant for RM15 million after the listing.

The IPO did not materialise. Part of the RM17.66 million was repaid, following discussions which were held between the parties to settle the debt, culminating in a repayment agreement dated 17-2-2024 (“Repayment Agreement”). According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant agreed to: S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw a) treat the RM280,000.00 paid to the Plaintiff on 5-12-2023 and 17-1-2024 as part payment; b) pay RM16,720,000.00 (i.e. RM17.66 million, less RM660,000.00 paid on 25-3-2021 and RM280,000 paid as aforesaid) in: i) 9 instalments between 1-3-2024 and 27-12-2024; and ii) the balance RM3.14 million in 2025. However, only RM3,080,000.00 was repaid by the 1st Defendant, leaving a balance of RM13,640,000.00 unpaid.

On 23-1-2025, the Plaintiff terminated the Repayment Agreement and demanded RM13.64 million from the 1st Defendant under that agreement. Analysis and findings

The Mareva injunction is available to an applicant who can demonstrate (a) a good arguable case; (b) that the defendants have assets within the jurisdiction; and (c) that there was a risk of the assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied (S&F International Ltd. v. Trans-Con Engineering Sdn. Bhd. [1985] 1 MLJ 62 (“S&F International”)). Good arguable case

A variety of disputes have arisen between the parties, including those which form the subject matter of other overlapping litigation: S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw a) On 14-10-2024, the 1st Defendant filed Penang High Court Suit No: PA-22NCVC-148-10/2024 (“Suit 148”) against the Plaintiff to seek, inter alia, a declaration that the total RM9 million loan pursuant to 4 of the 6 Loan Agreements here (Loan Agreements No. 1, 2, 4 and 6) is void under the Moneylenders Act 1951. There is a counterclaim to that same effect here; b) In this action, the 1st Defendant claims that RM8 million under the Loan Agreement No. 3 was meant as “security” only, Loan Agreement No. 5 was for a share purchase transaction that had been repaid, and that in respect of Loan Agreements No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 for the RM9 million:

RM4.5 million was paid to one Datuk Wan Kian Han whom the Plaintiff is also in litigation with in Johor Bahru

(ii) it was agreed to be repayable only after the sale of certain assets of Kujaya Dormitories Sdn Bhd. c) In Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No: WA-22NCC-646- 09/2024, the Plaintiff has sued the 1st Defendant’s brother, Neo Ching Hoe, for the return of 120,000 Kujaya Management Sdn Bhd shares, which had been transferred to Neo Ching Hoe on 8-9-2021 by the 1st Defendant, claiming to be the trust beneficiary of those shares. The piecemeal nature of the litigation obscured the overall coherence of the transaction. S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw

For present purposes, the 1st Defendant regards the RM280,000.00 as interest payments, whereas the Plaintiff argued that interest charged upon default in a friendly loan arrangement does not convert the transaction into a loan at interest caught by the Moneylenders Act 1951 (Muhibbah Teguh Sdn Bhd v Yaacob bin Mat Yim [2005] 7 MLJ 270). The Plaintiff also postulates that the RM280,000.00 was a clumsy attempt by the 1st Defendant to “trap” him into accepting an interest payment, but that it was ultimately taken up as part of the principal repayment.

These are matters that turn on the facts to be ventilated at trial. The defence of illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951 cannot be determined at this stage because this is not an obvious case of an unlicensed moneylending transaction.

Notwithstanding the defences raised and the alternative narrative partly supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp communication, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has pleaded a good arguable case based on the primary documentary evidence sighted. At least on the face of the Loan Agreements and Repayment Agreement, the Plaintiff has a case that is more than barely arguable that monies were advanced and are repayable. Assets in the jurisdiction

It is undisputed that the 1st Defendant has assets in the jurisdiction. S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw Serious risk of asset dissipation

The Plaintiff referred to the following as proof that the 1st Defendant means to dissipate his assets to avoid a judgment: a) On or about 20-6-2024, the 1st Defendant furnished a list of 20 properties in and around Penang and Kuala Lumpur that he said would be sold to repay the Plaintiff, but he never repaid the Plaintiff despite some properties being sold; b) On 2-3-2026, the 1st Defendant listed his Baystar Condominium residence on two property websites for sale and the 1st Defendant’s multiple vehicles that are usually parked at Baystar Condominium are no longer seen; c) The 1st Defendant’s undertaking not to dispose of 20% of his shareholding in the 3rd Respondent in lieu of an ad interim injunction pending the inter partes hearing of Enclosure 18, was alleged to be illusory and misleading. The Plaintiff claims that the building (“Alora”) is owned by Perimore Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the 3rd Respondent, and had been pledged as collateral against claims by 2 Taiwanese claimants in Penang High Court Suit No. PA-22NCVC-69-05/2025 (“Suit 69”). The Plaintiff also argued that this Court may infer dishonesty on the part of the 1st Defendant, and a tendency to dissipate his assets to defeat a judgment, based on the claim pleaded.

The 1st Defendant argued that there is an unexplained delay in the filing of Enclosure 18 and that the materiality of any delay is a relevant consideration in a Mareva injunction application (Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241).

According to the Plaintiff’s own evidence, the 1st Defendant had said he would liquidate assets to pay the Plaintiff, but did not pay the Plaintiff by 2025. The Plaintiff pleaded that he terminated the Repayment Agreement and demanded RM13.64 million from the 1st Defendant as early as 23-1-2025. Thus, part of the key facts relied upon by the Plaintiff to prove a serious risk of dissipation of assets had taken place by early 2025, by which time Suit 148 disputing the Plaintiff’s claim was already well underway.

There is some merit in the argument that the facts underlying the assertion of risk of dissipation of assets to avoid a judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims for repayment, were largely already at play for a year before this fresh action was filed in February 2026. If there was an imminent risk that the 1st Defendant would liquidate his assets and not pay the Plaintiff, a freezing order should have been taken out much sooner.

However, this Court accepts the Plaintiff’s claim that he only recently discovered the facts that led to the present application in Enclosure 18, i.e. the only recent development being the listing of the 1st Defendant’s Baystar Condominium residence for sale in March 2026. S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw The delay in moving the Court for a Mareva injunction is, in the circumstances, neither inordinate nor inexplicable, considering the burden of proof required to prove a serious risk of asset dissipation. Asset disposal

As noted, the burden is on the Plaintiff to demonstrate to this Court that there is a real risk that the 1st Defendant will dissipate his assets to render him judgment-proof. This Court considered the following: a) The 1st Defendant had listed his Baystar Condominium residence for sale, and that the reason cited by the 1st Defendant for doing so was the allegation pleaded in Suit 148, that the Plaintiff had harassed and defamed him by posting flyers identifying him as a debt defaulter at numerous locations, including at Baystar Condominium. b) The 1st Defendant’s averment that he had indeed previously sold some of his cars in 2024, but he also paid RM3 million to the Plaintiff that year, and has since purchased new cars presently registered to him and his wife. This averment was not credibly disputed and can be independently verified. c) The attempt to downplay the value of the 1st Defendant’s shares in the 3rd Defendant was also inconclusive because there is no evidence that Alora (valued at RM120 million) has been encumbered or that there is a competing claim to title to that property in Suit 69, thus diminishing the value of the shares. S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw The above facts do not overwhelmingly point to any deliberate act of asset dissipation. In particular, the intended sale and transfer of the Baystar Condominium was not done secretly, as one might expect if the 1st Defendant wished to move this asset out of the Plaintiff’s reach.

It is largely undisputed that the 1st Defendant had voluntarily listed his real estates, vehicles, directorships and interests in numerous companies. Ownership of these assets is independently verifiable from public searches (though this was not done in this case, and therefore assumed to be true). If the 1st Defendant harboured any intention to dissipate his assets to avoid a judgment based on his response to the Plaintiff’s demand for repayment, clearer evidence of this would have been available, particularly in light of the 1st Defendant’s prior disclosure of properties he claims to own or control.

It was highlighted that the list of 20 properties disclosed on 20-6- 2024, half were his own properties and half belong to companies related to the 1st Defendant. On this, the Plaintiff cannot simultaneously rely on the alleged sale of some of these assets as evidence of dissipation while also contending that the assets do not belong to the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding his indirect interest in some properties, it was not credibly disputed that the 1st Defendant personally owned the others listed.

Ultimately, this Court does not consider the incidental sale of certain properties by the 1st Defendant, when coupled with the retention of other disclosed properties of value, as indicative of an intention to dissipate assets to defeat a potential judgment creditor. On the S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw contrary, the evidence suggests that the 1st Defendant has more than sufficient available assets to meet the Plaintiff’s claim, has clear ties to the local community and is actively involved in multiple ongoing legal proceedings, thus posing no obvious flight risk.

Finally, as observed by the Court of Appeal in Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v. Lee Yee Wuen [2022] MLJU 3411: “[100] As for allegations of misappropriation, dishonesty or lack of probity, it is a matter of common sense that even if there exists evidence of these allegations, they must also be of a nature that has a real and material bearing on, or of a nature that can justify an inference of, a real risk of dissipation of assets (see Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar And Another v. Accent Delight International Ltd And Another And Another Appeal [2015] SGCA 45; [2015] 5 SLR 558). Mere allegations of these nature, even with some evidence in support of these allegations, would not per se warrant a presumption or inference that there exists a real risk of dissipation of assets. [101] As mentioned, there was no direct evidence of any such risk of dissipation by both appellants of their assets. How the learned judge came to a conclusion on this issue is set out in the grounds of judgment thus: [31] Given that the Court had earlier found a good and arguable case for misappropriation, appointment of the 2nd Defendant as not being S/N MqnsF9ItPEeeNi94Mcn/rw in the best interest and that the 1st Defendant had breached his director’s duty in not convening an EGM, these were acts which the Court could take into account in presuming a real risk of dissipation. (emphasis added) [102] The reasoning disclosed in this paragraph of the grounds of judgment in fact suggests a process in which the learned judge had inferred from the ‘acts’ referred to, rather than presumed, that there exists a real risk of dissipation. [103] However, we are of the view that to infer a real risk of dissipation merely because a good arguable case has been made out is a step too far. This would be tantamount to conflating the two separate required ingredients into one.” [Emphasis added]

In this case, the 1st Defendant is sued on what are said to be friendly loans given by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant. It is now alleged to also be part of a fraudulent investment scheme. There are disputes concerning the true nature of the transaction and the possibility of illegal moneylending, but also evidence of part payments by the 1st Defendant and a plea that the balance is not due yet or not due at all because of other arrangements made.

The alleged dishonesty arising from the pleaded case is equivocal at this stage and is not of a nature that justifies an inference of a real risk of dissipation of assets.

For the reasons set out above, this Court dismissed Enclosure 18 with costs in the cause. Bertarikh: 28 Mei 2026 ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Peguam Untuk Plaintif: Wong Yee Chue (Ho Hui Ying dan Aw Yuen Hui bersamanya) Tetuan Y.C. Wong Untuk Defendan Pertama: Lee Khai (Teh Chiew Yin dan Matthew Daniel Boudville bersamanya) Tetuan Ong & Manecksha Untuk Defendan Kedua dan