Reezal Jai Rihan Bin Abdullah v Danesh A/L Sivadas (BA-22NCvC-342-08/2022)

DANESH A/L SIVADAS

BUVANA A/P KULAMARAN (NO. K/P: 910601-14-5452) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The Plaintiff is a Unit Manager in AIA Berhad (“AIA”) and operates his own insurance agency, Life Associates Sdn Bhd. [2] The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are for two causes of actions –

Claims for defamatory statements made by the Defendants against the Plaintiff; and 23/01/2024 13:50:12

Claims for civil fraud and/or forgery of documents by the Defendants in order to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation as an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry. [3] The Plaintiff seeks for the following reliefs and/or remedies: With respect to the defamatory statements:

declaration that the Defendants had jointly and/or individually committed acts of defamation against the Plaintiff.

declaration of apology by way of oral and/or written apology to be issued by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually towards the Plaintiff, AIA, Life Associates and Life Associates’ agents for all the defamatory statements made against the Plaintiffs.

payment of sums RM 1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered by the Plaintiff as result of the first defamatory statements and the loss of reputation suffered by the Plaintiff.

payment of sums RM1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered by the Plaintiff as result of the second defamatory statements and the loss of reputation suffered by the Plaintiff.

exemplary damages as deemed fit by this Court for the Defendants’ actions in respect of the 2 defamatory statements.

general damages to be assessed by this Court for the losses and distress suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendants’ defamatory statements against the Plaintiff.

interests and costs. With respect to the Fraud and/or Forgery:

declaration that the Letter of Intent is null and void by reason of the Defendants fraud and/or forgery committed and therefore unenforceable against the Plaintiff.

payment of sums RM1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered as result of the Defendants’ act of fraud and/or forgery.

general damages to be assessed by this Court by reason of the Defendants act of fraud and/or forgery against the Plaintiff.

interests and costs. Who is the Plaintiff? [4] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about himself and his background as follows, among others: • the Plaintiff is a Malaysian individual. • the Plaintiff is a Unit Manager in AIA Berhad (“AIA”) and operates his own insurance agency, Life Associates Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1340731-H) (“Life Associates”) a company incorporated in Malaysia with registered address at Suite 8.02, Menara AIA, Intan Millennium Square, Jalan Batai 4, 41300 Klang, Selangor. Life Associates is an insurance agency with forty (40) agents. • the Plaintiff’s Achievements and Accolades

at all times, the Plaintiff is an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry.

the Plaintiff as an individual has been part of AIA Bhd for 5 years and had been promoted to an Assistant Unit Manager on 2018 and was promoted to Unit Manager on 2019.

the Plaintiff is also the managing director of Life Associates (an insurance agency).

the Plaintiff as part of Life Associates had achieved the following accolades awarded by AIA throughout the years from 2019 to 2022, i.e. Million Dollar Round Table qualifier for year 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022; President Club Qualifier; Sydney MDRT Qualifier; Star Club Qualifier; Corporate Solutions Master; Corporate Solutions Platinum Advisor; Corporate Solutions Champion Club Qualifier; Summit Qualifier; and Million Dollar Agency for year 2019, 2020 and 2021, consecutively. Who are the Defendants? [5] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about the Defendants as follows: The First Defendant (D1): • D1 is a Malaysian individual and residing at Kota Kemuning, 40460 Shah Alam, Selangor. • D1 is one of the directors of Limbo Solutions Sdn Bhd (Company No. 1230876-T), a company incorporated in Malaysia with registered address at Jalan Klang Lama, Kuala Lumpur (is refer to as “LIMBO”). The Second Defendant (D2): • D2 is a Malaysian individual and residing Taman Sri Muda, 40400 Shah Alam, Selangor. • D2 is also a director of LIMBO. The facts The Plaintiff’s version: [6] Meeting between the Plaintiff and D1: Around December 2020, the Plaintiff had met D1 by chance, in a cafe in Kota Kemuning. Prior to this, the Plaintiff has no knowledge of the 1st Defendant. At that time, D1 had introduced himself as the owner of LIMBO, a company which focuses on trading and specialises in online marketing and branding. D1 and the Plaintiff kept in touch after their initial meeting. After several non-formal meetings between the D1 and the Plaintiff, D1 had offered to provide training sessions in online marketing and branding to agents introduced by the Plaintiff, from Life Associates. The Plaintiff was reluctant to take up the offer. However, D1 was insistent and had tactically persuaded the Plaintiff to agree to his offer. Thereafter, D1 and the Plaintiff came to an understanding for D1 to provide online marketing and branding to the agents from Life Associates introduced by the Plaintiff. Based on the above understanding alone, on 29-3-2021, D1 insisted that LIMBO and Life Associates to enter into a non-disclosure agreement before commencing the online marketing and branding training sessions. The Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”): [7] On 30-6-2021, the NDA was digitally signed by the Plaintiff as the Managing Director of Life Associates Sdn Bhd. [8] The Plaintiff highlights that the NDA was backdated to 29-3-2021, despite it being signed by the Plaintiff on 30.6.2021. [9] The relevant terms of the NDA are summarised, as follows:

the NDA is between LIMBO and Life Associates;

Life Associates as the Recipient undertakes to protect the confidentiality of the confidential information disclosed by

the confidential information is defined as, any financial, commercial, statistical and/or technical data or information pertaining to LIMBO’s business operations, systems and affairs, business plans, processes and procedures, technology, methods, techniques, formulae, know-how, research, products, developments, samples, inventions, designs, drawings, specifications, creations, engineering, trade secrets, intellectual property, trademarks, copyrights, trade names, IT systems(s), program development and configuration, software, object/source codes, services, marketing strategies, regarding any other business of LIMBO and/or its related companies and any other information which may be disclosed directly or indirectly from, or pursuant to discussions, correspondence or negotiations between the Parties in written, printed, electronic or other tangible form, whether in oral or visual form (Clause 1 of NDA). [10] The Plaintiff avers that based on the terms of the NDA, it has no relation to the Defendant’s alleged training in online marketing and branding to the Life Associates’ agents introduced by the Plaintiff. [11] The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants had tactically persuaded the Plaintiff to enter into the NDA with malicious intent and to extort monies from the Plaintiff. D1’s Purchase of Insurance Policies: [12] On or around May 2021, D1 had purchased 5 insurance policies from the Plaintiff (“the Insurance Policies”). The insurance policies purchased by D1 are for − i. Sivadas a/l R K Bhaskaran ii. Managoran a/l Sankaran iii. Sumangi a/p VG Gopala Panick iv. Danesh a/l Sivadas (D1) v. Buvana a/p Kulamaran (Second Defendant/D2) [13] On 19-5-2021, the Defendants through LIMBO made payment in total sums of RM3,874.30 for the Insurance Policies. [14] At around the same time, the Plaintiff had personally visited the D1 at his residence in order for the Insurance Policies holders as named above, to sign and proses the Insurance Policies. [15] In this respect, the Plaintiff learned that the Insurance Policies holders are all family members of D1, i.e. Sivadas a/l R K Bhaskaran is D1’s father; Managoran a/l Sankaran is D1’s uncle; Sumangi a/p VG Gopala Panick is D1’s Mother; and Buvana a/p Kulamaran is D1’s Business Partner. [16] At that time, D1 had requested for the Insurance Policies to be paid by the Plaintiff. In return, the Defendant through LIMBO would pay directly to Life Associates for the monthly premiums for the Insurance Policies. [17] Under D1’s persuasion, the Plaintiff had set up a pre-paid AEON Card (“the Aeon Card”), to carry out payment of monthly premiums for the Insurance Policies. The Plaintiff had made it clear that the payment for the Insurance Policies through the pre-paid AEON card would only be made after the Plaintiff had received the total monthly premiums in respect of the Insurance Policies. [18] The Plaintiff emphasises that D1’s purchase of the Insurance Policies is independent of any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and/or Life Associates and LIMBO. The purchase of the insurance policies was made by the Defendants on their own accord. D1’s online marketing and branding training sessions: [19] On 28-6-2021, the Plaintiff had introduced several agents from Life Associates to the D1 to undergo training in online marketing and branding. The Plaintiff also had provided the details of the agents who would be joining the Defendants’ training sessions. [20] On or around July 2021, the agents began their training with the Defendants. However, upon attending the alleged training sessions conducted by D1, the agents had informed the Plaintiff that they were in fact were briefed and trained in trading of cryptocurrency and not in online marketing and branding. [21] The Defendants had allegedly promised a return of around RM5,000.00 to RM10,000.00 a day. [22] The Plaintiff was further informed by the agents namely, Ruslan Vadivelan, Muhammad Ridzuan and Maitreya that the Defendants as part of their alleged training, had asked the agents to open bank accounts and to apply for any loans. These loan sums are intended to be utilised as capital for the cryptocurrency trading under the guidance of the Defendants. [23] The Defendants then will take a percentage of any earnings made by the agents from the cryptocurrency trading, as fee for their services. D1’s suspicious conduct: [24] The Plaintiff also noticed that there was daily payment of less than RM10 from LIMBO to Life Associates. The Plaintiff was concerned of this peculiar and out of norm transaction to the Life Associates account. [25] The Plaintiff was concerned and questioned D1 regarding these daily transactions and was informed that those transactions were premium payments for the Insurance Policies. When questioned, D1 informed the Plaintiff that this was necessary as LIMBO had to close its financial account daily as part of its business operations. Therefore, premium payments for the Insurance Policies would be made daily. This had further raised the Plaintiff’s suspicion of the Defendant’s conduct. [26] The discontinuance of the alleged training by the Life Associates agents: The Plaintiff was concerned about the Defendants’ character, motives and actions with respect to the Life Associates’ agents introduced by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. [27] The Plaintiff advised the agents from Life Associates to discontinue their training with LIMBO and the Defendants, out of concerns of the legality of the Defendants operation, the Defendant’s motives and intentions with regard to the Life Associates’ agents. [28] Thereafter, the Life Associates agents discontinued their alleged training with the Defendants and LIMBO. [29] Despite the agent’s discontinuance of their training with the Defendants and LIMBO, the D1 had continuously attempted to communicate and convince the agents take part in the cryptocurrency trading activities conducted by the Defendants. [30] In this regard, the Plaintiff had on multiple occasions on behalf of the Life Associates agents informed and requested D1 to stop calling and harassing the Life Associates agents. However, D1 had failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with the Plaintiff’s request. [31] On 11-7-2021 by way of letter from the Plaintiff on behalf of Life Associates to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had terminated the NDA signed between LIMBO and Life Associates, as there were no longer any training sessions conducted by the Defendants for the Life Associates’ agents. Cancellation of the Insurance Policies: [32] Subsequent to the Life Associates’ agents’ discontinuance of training with the Defendants, on 13-7-2021, D2 had instructed the Plaintiff to cancel the Insurance Policies. The Plaintiff had also on or around July 2021, received similar instructions from the other Insurance Policies holders. [33] In this regard, the Plaintiff avers that in the meanwhile, D1 had actually requested for the Insurance Policies to be transferred and placed under the purview of the Deputy Manager, Mr Chiew Chee Sian. Mr Chiew Chee Sian however, declined to take over the Insurance Policies. [34] The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants’ decision to cancel the Insurance Policies was due to the discontinuance of the alleged training by the Life Associates’ agents. [35] As part of the cancellation of the Insurance Policies, the Plaintiff forwarded to the Defendants’ and the other Insurance Policies’ holders, the cancellation and surrender forms to cancel the said policy. The Defendants and the other Insurance Policies holder had executed and returned the said cancellation and surrender form accordingly. [36] Subsequently, the Insurance Policies were cancelled and the premium sums paid up to that time in total of RM1,115.30 was returned to the Defendants on 10-7-2021. The Defendants’ allegation of breach of agreement and demand for RM9,900.00 from the Plaintiff: [37] On 15-7-2021, the Plaintiff had received an email enclosing a letter from the Defendants’ solicitors, Messrs Sangram Jai Singh, a law office based in New Delhi, India alleging amongst others, as follows (“Defendants’ Indian solicitors’ letter”):

that the termination of the NDA is allegedly invalid and unlawful.

that as a result of the Plaintiff alleged conduct, the Defendants had suffered loss of RM9,900.00 for time allegedly wasted.

that the Plaintiff is to transfer within 14 days of receipt of the letter, sum of RM9,900.00 to LIMBO’s bank account or 0.0682 BTC to Bitcoin wallet address given on the day of transaction, for the alleged losses suffered by the Defendants. [38] Upon receipt of the Defendants’ Indian solicitors’ letter, the Plaintiff on the same day (15-7-2021) lodged a police report against the Defendants to record his statement and as precautionary measure against any future actions by the Defendants. [39] On 16-7-2021, the Plaintiff had also lodged a complaint against the Defendants and LIMBO to Bank Negara Malaysia, the Inland Revenue Board, Securities Commissions and the Police. [40] Despite so, the Plaintiff was still harassed and received complaints due to the Defendants’ action. Therefore, he had on 22.7.2021, lodged another police report to record his statement and as precautionary measure against any future actions by the Defendants. [41] On 29-7-2021, the Plaintiff replied to the Defendants’ Indian solicitors’ letter refuting all the allegations made out in the said letter. The Defendants lodged complaints against the Plaintiff to AIA: [42] The Plaintiff has pleaded that the 2 complaints by the Defendants to AIA are false, the details are as in the table − First complaint: • on 23-8-2021 by way of letter from AIA to the Plaintiff (“the AIA Letter”), the Plaintiff learned that the Defendants complaint against the Plaintiff were based on the following allegations:

the Plaintiff had utilised money given by the Defendants to purchase the Insurance Policies without their knowledge and consent.

when the Defendant had discovered that the Plaintiff had allegedly used their monies to purchase the Insurance Policies, the requested a refund of the said sums, but the Plaintiff allegedly refused to do so.

the Plaintiff had allegedly forged the Defendants signatures in the Application Authorisation Forms and the AIA Vitality Membership Application Forms.

the Plaintiff had allegedly registered the Plaintiff’s personal credit card and/or debit card (AEON) as the credit/debit card for the Insurance Policies. • pursuant to the AIA Letter, the Plaintiff was provided 7 days from the said letter to answer the allegations. Second complaint: • on or around July 2021, the Defendants by way of email to AIA made a second complaint against the Plaintiff. • the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff had by way of a Letter of Intent for Proposed Joint Venture between LIMBO and Life Associates dated 5-5- 2021 (“the alleged Letter of Intent”), had agreed for the creation of a Joint Venture between LIMBO and Life Associates for the purposes of engaging in Insurance in Bitcoin business, named Bitcoin City Project. A copy of the alleged Letter of Intent was enclosed together with the Second Complaint and was provided to the Plaintiff by AIA. • the Plaintiff was again under internal investigation by AIA. In this regard, AIA had forwarded to the Plaintiff the alleged Letter of Intent in order for the Plaintiff to respond and defend against the complaint made by the Defendants against the Plaintiff. [43] In this regard, the Plaintiff emphasis that throughout the Plaintiff’s term as an agent and later Unit Manager under AIA, this was the first time, a complaint was made out against the Plaintiff. [44] As a result of the Defendants’ complaints, the AIA Letter was issued to the Plaintiff. [45] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff pleads that these complaints had damaged and hurt the Plaintiff’s reputation as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. [46] Premised on the above, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendants had committed defamatory acts to cause disrepute and damage, which hurt the Plaintiff’s reputation as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. The defence The Defendants’ version of fact: [47] The Defendants in its defence to the facts as per the Plaintiff’s version are as follows: Agreed Reply by Defendants Plaintif merupakan Pengurus Unit di AIA Berhad dan yang mengendalikan syarikat sendiri iaitu Life Associates Sdn Bhd serta alamat pendaftarannya

Surat Pengesahan Pendaftaran Syarikat Life Associates Plaintif di dalam sistem MITI bertarikh 7.7.2021 (“surat MITI tersebut”), syarikat Plaintif tertera dikategorikan sebagai sektor perkhidmatan Makanan dan Minuman dan bukanlah agensi insurans yang dikatakan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan-Defendan.

Pada awalnya, Plaintif telah memperkenalkan dirinya kepada Defendan-Defendan, secara khususnya D1, sekitar sebelum November 2020 dimana pada ketika itu, Plaintif memaklumkan bahawa beliau Agreed Reply by Defendants memerlukan ejen dan memberi promosi jualan bagi agensi insurans beliau di Life Associates Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Life Associates”) dan memerlukan bantuan dari Defendan-Defendan menerusi syarikat mereka iaitu LIMBO Solutions Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “LIMBO”).

Semasa perjumpaan pertama itu juga, D1 memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa beliau merupakan salah seorang pemilik bagi syarikat LIMBO yang mengendalikan L-licensing, I-investing, M-marketing, B-Branding Online di dalam industri Bitcoin.

Setelah ketahui bahawa syarikat Defendan-Defendan mempunyai potensi untuk Plaintif berurusan bersama di dalam perjanjian perniagaan, Agreed Reply by Defendants Plaintif kerap menghubungi D1 untuk menetapkan perjumpaan dengan pihak Defendan-Defendan bagi tujuan untuk membantu beliau dalam menjayakan satu cadangan usahasama/Joint Venture. Kedua-dua pihak selanjutnya bersetuju untuk memasuki satu surat berniat untuk cadangan berkerjasama antara syarikat Life Associates Sdn Bhd dan Limbo Solutions Sdn Bhd iaitu surat LOI tersebut.

Pada satu sesi perbualan WhatsApp bertarikh 14.6.2021, Plaintif berterusan menawarkan kepada D1 untuk mencairkan atau menukarkan bitcon daripada pelanggan-pelanggan Defendan-Defendan kepada satu pelaburan semasa dengan dengan minimum pelaburan sebanyak USD15,000.00.

Plaintif juga berterusan memohon Defendan-Defendan untuk mengambil polisi insuran AIA yang dianggap sebagai daily allocation iaitu dana untuk usahasama ke arah kegunaan insurans di dalam industri Bitcoin.

Berdasarkan kepada representasi dan tawaran oleh Plaintif, Defendan-Defendan telah berusaha untuk memastikan bahawa usahasama tersebut berjaya dan telah memaklumkan kepada pelanggan-pelanggan mereka berhubung tawaran yang dicadangkan oleh Plaintif. Defendan-Defendan juga bersetuju untuk mengambil polisi insuran AIA menerusi Plaintif bagi memulakan usahasama tersebut.

Defendan-Defendan tidak pernah diterangkan secara terperinci mengenai polisi yang akan didaftarkan di atas nama Plaintif. Plaintif kerap kali berjanji akan memberikan penjelasan tetapi tidak pernah melakukannya sehinggalah Defendan-Defendan menerima pesanan ringkas daripada AIA bahawa nama Defendan-Defendan telah di daftarkan di dalam satu polisi.

Menerusi pesanan Whatsapp yang berterusan, Plaintif menggesa Defendan-Defendan membuat bayaran ke atas polisi tersebut dan berjanji akan menerangkan berkenaan polisi yang didaftarkan kepada Defendan-Defendan. Plaintif juga mula mengelak daripada perbincangan berkenaan usahasama yang akan dijalinkan.

Pada 9-7-2021, menerusi satu pesanan WhatsApp D2 telah memberikan amaran kepada Plaintif untuk memberikan penjelasan berkenaan polisi yang didaftarkan di atas nama Defendan-Defendan tetapi Plaintif masih juga cuba mengelak dan/atau gagal untuk memberikan maklumat berhubung nombor polisi dan juga perlindungan yang diberikan. Oleh itu, Defendan Pertama memberikan satu pesanan WhatsApp mengarahkan Plaintif untuk menukarkan polisi mereka kepada agen lain yang bernama Chee Sian namun Plaintif mengatakan bahawa dia tidak akan menukarkannya.

Pada 10-7-2021, akibat kegagalan Plaintif untuk bersikap jujur dan Defendan-Defendan akhirnya menyedari bahawa mereka telah ditipu, D2 bagi pihak dirinya dan D1 telah memberikan arahan kepada Plaintif untuk membatalkan pendaftaran polisi tersebut dan menggesa agar wang yang dibayar oleh mereka dipulangkan oleh Plaintif.

Plaintif yang bertindak untuk meyakinkan Defendan-Defendan dalam proses untuk memulakan perniagaan bersama Plaintif memberikan representasi bahawa kolaberasi antara syarikat Plaintif (Life Associates) dan syarikat Defendan-Defendan (LIMBO) dapat memperolehi nilai pendapatan yang banyak dan lebih berpotensi untuk dijayakan. Malah sesi Agreed Reply by Defendants perjumpaan telahpun dibuat yang melibatkan antara Plaintif, salah seorang Pengarah Life Associates iaitu Puan Razlin Irawati Binti Johar yang merupakan isteri kepada Plaintif dan juga D1. Keseluruhan pertemuan dan mesyuarat ini diadakan antara kedua-dua pihak sebelum memasuki LOI.

Berdasarkan persetujuan dan persefahaman bersama, kedua-dua pihak menjalankan Peer to Peer (P2P) trading dimana: Defendan-Defendan akan menyalurkan dana kepada Life Associates Sdn Bhd sebagai Daily Allocation dan/atau Insurans dan akan memberikan 5% bahagian keuntungan kepada Life Associates Sdn Bhd sekiranya, (a) Plaintif akan menggunakan dana yang diberikan oleh Defendan- Agreed Reply by Defendants Defendan dalam bentuk Daily Allocation dan/atau Insurans itu untuk kegunaan mempromosikan insurans dalam industri penggunaan Industry Bitcoin yang dilaburkan oleh

Agen-agen daripada Life Associates Sdn Bhd akan mendapat latihan dalam menjalankan operasi dan sistem menggunakan Ringgit (MYR) dan Industry

Penyediaan promosi secara online dan branding kepada Life Associates Sdn Bhd adalah berdasarkan operasi dan sistem penggunaan Ringgit (MYR) dan Bitcoin. Plaintif memberi keyakinan bahawa Industry Bitcoin boleh dimasukkan ke dalam polisi AIA tanpa sebarang masalah.

Defendan-Defendan meminta Plaintif memberikan tandatangan digital ke atas ‘Non-Disclosure Agreement’ (“NDA”) kerana ia adalah prosedur biasa memandangkan Plaintif tidak dapat salinan fizikal. Oleh itu salinan digital memerlukan tandatangan digital.

Defendan-Defendan masih belum “membeli” 5 polisi insurans tersebut kerana masih belum jelas apakah polisi yang sepatutnya mereka terima kerana tiada penjelasan daripada Plaintif. Walaupun Defendan-Defendan membuat pembayaran ke atas 5 polisi insurans tersebut, ia merupakan pembayaran tergantung “Floating” sehingga disahkan polisi apakah yang Agreed Reply by Defendants akan diterima oleh Defendan-Defendan. Pada setiap masa, Plaintif yang telah tandatangan sebarang jenis borang pendaftaran polisi, menghidupkan polisi dan membuat pembayaran terdahulu dengan tergesa-gesa mengunakan kad debit Plaintif sendiri TANPA pengetahuan Defendan-Defendan ketika itu. Pada masa material, Plaintif mengetahui bahawa salah seorang pelabur TRV Sdn.Bhd dan LIMBO sudah mula mencurigai tindak tanduk beliau ketika itu yang kelihatan ingin mengelak daripada membincangkan berkenaan usahasama industry bitcoin antara mereka.

Plaintif cuba menipu Defendan-Defendan dengan memberikan bil lebih mahal daripada harga sebenar polisi insurans yang ditetapkan oleh AIA. Bayaran sebenar yang sepatutnya dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan adalah RM3,874.30 tetapi Plaintif telah memberikan bil berjumlah RM4,558.00 menerusi sebutharga bertarikh 19-5-2021.

Plaintif tidak pernah berjumpa dengan Defendan-Defendan untuk meminta tandatangan daripada Defendan-Defendan dan kesemua pemegang polisi insurans. Bahkan Plaintif terus gagal untuk menjelaskan apakah polisi yang didaftarkan oleh Plaintif tanpa merujuk kebenaran daripada Defendan-Defendan dan pemegang polisi insurans lain.

Plaintif melakukan penipuan nyata kerana pemegang-pemegang polisi insurans tersebut tidak pernah berjumpa dengan Plaintif dan tidak pernah memberikan tandatangan mereka kepada Plaintif. Bukti Plaintif menipu dalam memberikan kenyataan di dalam Penyataan Tuntutan beliau ialah Plaintif tidak mengenali pemegang insuran tersebut dan hanya membuat anggapan salah bahawa Sumangi a/p VG Gopala Panicker adalah ibu kepada Defendan Pertama. Puan Sumangi bukanlah ibu kepada Defendan Pertama malahan beliau adalah pelabur kepada LIMBO.

D1 tidak pernah meminta Plaintif membayar polisi insurans mereka sebaliknya D1 meminta untuk diselaraskan agar D1 membuat pembayaran secara harian.

latihan tidak sempat untuk diadakan selepas Defendan-Defendan mendapat tahu Plaintif tidak berhasrat untuk meneruskan dengan usahasama. Plaintif gagal untuk memaklumkan kepada agen bahawa mereka akan mendapat latihan berkenaan dengan cryptocurrency dan kesemua agen-agen ini tiada pengetahuan berkenaan bitcoin. Ini menyebabkan agen-agen ini salah faham terhadap penjelasan Defendan-Defendan. Agreed Reply by Defendants Manakala Defendan-Defendan menyangka agen-agen ini sudah dimaklumkan secara ringkas sebelum dihubungi oleh Defendan-Defendan. Plaintif dengan sengaja ingin menimbulkan salah faham antara agen-agen tersebut dengan Defendan-Defendan.

Ketiga-tiga agen tidak dimaklumkan terlebih dahulu oleh Plaintif bahawa mereka akan dilatih berhubung Bitcoin hingga menyebabkan salah faham. Defendan-Defendan tidak pernah meminta agen-agen ini membuka akaun kerana tiada keperluan untuk buka akaun memandangkan Plaintif telah meminta Defendan-Defendan menanggung kos latihan agen-agen ini. Agreed Reply by Defendants Defendan-Defendan berhak untuk mengambil sebahagian keuntungan daripada transaksi Bitcoin yang dilakukan oleh agen-agen kerana mereka akan belajar secara percuma. Defendan-Defendan hanya mengenakan percentage yang kecil daripada keuntungan keseluruhan agen-agen ini bagi menampung kos pembelajaran mereka. Bahkan peratusan bahagian yang diterima oleh Defendan-Defendan akan dibahagikan peratusannya pula kepada Plaintif atas permintaan Plaintif sendiri. Publications by the Defendants [48] The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants had published the 2 complaints that are defamatory statements to AIA, specifically but not limited to, members of the AIA’s Investigation Department, Gershon Isidore Wilfred, Chiew Chee Sian and Damond Teo Sze Ming. [49] According to the Plaintiff, in the first complaint its natural and ordinary meaning is mean to understood that Plaintiff –

is a person who has committed criminal acts;

is a person who allegedly misappropriated monies from his clients;

is a person who disobeys instructions given by his clients;

is a dishonest person who is capable of forging signatures on documents for his own benefit;

acts on premeditation and wilful intent to misappropriate monies from his clients; and (f) Plaintiff is a disreputable and unethical insurance agent and/or member of society. And also, the first complaint that is defamatory statement by way of innuendo is mean to understood that –

Plaintiff is a dishonest persons;

Plaintiff is capable of criminal acts; and

Plaintiff has no concern and/or responsibilities towards AIA, Life Associates, Life Associates’ agents and or his clients. [50] The consequences of the first complaint are that the Plaintiff – • was under investigation by AIA. This had caused disrepute and damage, which hurt the Plaintiff’s reputation as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. • has been brought into public ridicule, contempt and hurt of his reputation and position as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. • has been lowered in the estimation of right-thinking persons, in general. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional anguish and suffering. [51] According to the Plaintiff, in the second complaint the Defendants wrote the following defamatory statements in reference to the Plaintiff:

that the Plaintiff had entered into the alleged Letter of Intent in order to profit from the Defendant’s scrupulous activities.

that the Plaintiff had cheated and misappropriated sums allegedly belonging to the Defendants.

that the Plaintiff had acted in detriment to the Defendants. The Defendants had published the second complaint to AIA, specifically but not limited to, members of the AIA’s Investigation Department, Gershon Isidore Wilfred, Chiew Chee Sian and Damond Teo Sze Ming. [52] The Plaintiff firmly stated that in the second complaint, its natural and ordinary meaning is mean to understood that Plaintiff –

is a person who has committed criminal acts;

is a person who allegedly misappropriated monies from his clients;

is a person who disobeys instructions given by his clients;

is a dishonest person who is capable of forging signatures on documents for his own benefit;

acts on premeditation and wilful intent to misappropriate monies from his clients; and

a disreputable and unethical insurance agent and/or member of society. [53] And also, the second complaint by way of innuendo is mean to understood that Plaintiff –

is a dishonest persons;

Plaintiff is capable of criminal acts; and

has no concern and/or responsibilities towards AIA, Life Associates, Life Associates’ agents and or his clients. [54] The consequences of the second complaint are that the Plaintiff –

was under investigation by AIA. This had caused disrepute and damage, which hurt the Plaintiff’s reputation as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society.

has been brought into public ridicule, contempt and hurt of his reputation and position as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society.

has been lowered in the estimation of right-thinking persons, in general. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional anguish and suffering. [55] Therefore, the Plaintiff pleaded the losses suffered by him as follows:

Plaintiff could potentially be demoted, replaced and/or dismissed from his position as the Unit Manager of AIA.

Life Associates could potentially lose out its agency agreement with AIA.

Plaintiff could potentially lose the Life Associates’ agents who contribute to the Plaintiff’s earnings as the Managing Director of Life Associates.

Plaintiff could lose out on his current clientele who contribute to the Plaintiff’s earnings as a Unit Manager of AIA and as a Managing Director of Life Associates.

Plaintiff’s ability to recruit new agents is diminished which affects the Plaintiff’s earnings as a Unit Manager of AIA and as a Managing Director of Life Associates.

Plaintiff’s ability to enlist new clients is diminished which affects the Plaintiff’s earnings as a Unit Manager of AIA and as a Managing Director of Life Associates.

Plaintiff estimated earnings with respect to the above mentioned are –

Plaintiff earns an estimated sum of RM700,000.00 yearly as a Unit Manager of AIA; and

(ii) Plaintiff earns an estimate sum of RM 300,000.00 yearly as a Managing Director of Life Associates. Premised on the above, the Plaintiff claims that as a result of the 2 defamatory statements, the Plaintiff’s earnings in this regard are put in jeopardy. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to claim from the Defendants loses of RM1,000,000.00 for potential income loss as a result of the 2 defamatory statements. [56] As for civil fraud/forgery, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendants had committed civil fraud and/or forgery based on the following facts:

the Defendants had tactically persuaded the Plaintiff to digitally sign on the NDA.

the Defendants had with malicious intent persuaded the Plaintiff to digitally sign the NDA, in order to have access to a copy of the Plaintiff’s signature.

the Defendants forged the Plaintiff’s signature as signed on the NDA on to the alleged Letter of Intent.

the Defendants intends to rely on the alleged Letter of Intent to extort monies from the Plaintiff and/or to cause disrepute and damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation as a Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. [57] The Plaintiff avers that through the Defendants’ acts of fraud/forgery was intentionally carried out by the Defendants in order to disrepute and damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation as Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society. [58] By reason of the Defendants’ act of fraud/forgery, the Plaintiff is exposed to the Investigation by AIA based on the alleged Letter of Intent; disrepute and damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation as Unit Manager of AIA, the Managing Director of Life Associates and a contributing and responsible member of society; and the alleged claims arising from the Letter of Intent from the Defendants. [59] Premised on the above, the Plaintiff seeks to claim from the Defendants loses of RM 1,000,000.00 for potential income loss as a result of the Defendants’ acts of fraud and/or forgery. [60] The Defendants pleaded that – “48. Perenggan 50 PT Plaintif adalah dinafikan secara keseluruhan dan dianggap sebagai satu pembohongan untuk menyalahguna kuasa Mahkamah dan pihak polis. Defendan-Defendan tidak lagi menghubungi Plaintif setelah membuat aduan kepada pihak AIA. Defendan-Defendan menyerahkan kepada AIA untuk menjalankan siasatan dan memulangkan kembali wang Defendan-Defendan.”. [61] And also the Defendants had defended themselves by stating that – “TIADA UNSUR FITNAH i. Aduan Defendan-Defendan sebagai pelanggan kepada pihak AIA Berhad – Perlindungan atas keistimewaan (Privileged):

... menegaskan bahawa aduan yang dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan bukanlah aduan palsu tetapi ianya adalah aduan yang dibuat oleh Defendan-Defendan sebagai klien AIA.

pada 11-8-2021, Defendan-Defendan telah mengemukakan aduan kepada pihak AIA menerusi talian pelanggan AIA (‘Customer Careline’)/e-mel kepada my.customer@aia.com berkenaan dengan Polisi Insurans di bawah kawalan Plaintif sebagai salah seorang ejen AIA.

pada 12-8-2021, Defendan-Defendan telah menerima balasan e-mel dari Encik Anandsingam Bahagian Customer Care yang meminta Defendan-Defendan untuk mengemukakan sebarang bukti sokongan ke atas aduan yang dibuat terhadap Plaintif bagi pihak AIA untuk memulakan penyiasatan yang sewajarnya.

Pertukaran e-mel antara Defendan-Defendan dan AIA berlaku pada 14-8-2021, 17-8-2021, 19-8-2021 dan 25- 8-2021 di mana Defendan-Defendan telah melampirkan dokumen-dokumen sokongan kepada AIA atas permintaan AIA bagi tujuan melengkapkan penyiasatan terhadap Plaintif di mana ianya dibuat atas dasar permintaan Defendan-Defendan ‘to refund the amount in total and cancel the policy account’. E-mel Defendan-Defendan bertarikh 19-8-2021 juga memberikan penjelasan kepada AIA bahawa Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan berniat dan telah membentuk satu usahasama antara syarikat Life Associates dan LIMBO bagi mendapat manfaat bersama dan meluaskan portfolio rangkaian business AIA menerusi penyerapan transaksi Industry Bitcoin ii. Aduan dibuat adalah tanpa niat jahat/malice:

... Defendan-Defendan tidak mempunyai sebarang pengetahuan tentang perkara yang dikendalikan oleh pihak AIA dan Plaintif. Pada setiap masa material, Defendan-Defendan hanya dihubungi sekali sahaja dari bahagian AIA Complaince mengenai aduan yang dibuat oleh Defendan-Defendan pada 11.8.2021. iii. Justifikasi: Tindakan Plaintif yang memberikan representasi salah nyata apabila memasuki perjanjian berdasarkan polisi AIA tanpa mendapatkan kelulusan secara bertulis dari pihak AIA.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa justifikasi terhadap aduan-aduan mereka kepada pihak AIA adalah berdasarkan kepada fakta-fakta yang berikut:

53.1 Surat Niat bagi Cadangan Usahasama antara LIMBO dan Life Associates (“LOI tersebut”) adalah dibuat dan dimasuki atas persetujuan bersama oleh kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan dimana Plaintif telah meyakinkan Defendan-Defendan untuk bekerjasama/colloboration dan membentukkan usahasama tersebut/Joint Venture yang dapat memberi manfaat bersama dan menguntungkan kedua-dua portfolio perniagaan.

53.2 Dalam masa yang sama, Plaintif juga telah memberi kepercayaan penuh bahawa ejen insurans yang bekerja dibawah Life Associates akan diberi peluang untuk dilatih/diberi konsultasi oleh syarikat LIMBO untuk mengendalikan pelanggan-pelanggan yang berniat untuk membuat transaksi digital Bitcoin bagi tujuan untuk menjana pendapatan serta pelaburan semula ke dalam polisi AIA.

53.3 Namun, Defendan-Defendan hanya bergantung sepenuhnya ke atas Plaintif untuk mengendalikan polisi insurans AIA dengan pihak AIA di mana hal ini adalah di luar kawalan dan pengetahuan Defendan-Defendan. Ini kerana pada setiap masa material, Defendan-Defendan hanya berurusan dan membuat perjanjian dengan Plaintif yang merupakan seorang ejen dari AIA Berhad. ...

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa pembelian polisi insurans dibawah selia Plaintif adalah atas dasar dana pelaburan daripada Defendan-Defendan dan sememang tidak patut digunakan oleh Plaintif untuk membayar polisi insurans selagi belum mendapat penjelasan dan/atau kelulusan daripada Plaintif.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa tiada penyebaran kepada orang awam dilakukan. Sebaliknya Defendan-Defendan telah memberikan emel kepada unit-unit berkaitan sahaja.

... Defendan-Defendan menegaskan bahawa keseluruhan kenyataan dalam perenggan tersebut bukan fitnah ataupun sindiran tetapi secara justifikasi adalah gambaran tepat berkenaan personaliti, etika kerja dan tahap professionalism Plaintif.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan adalah prosedur biasa bagi sebuah syarikat untuk membuat siasatan apabila ada salah laku aduan daripada awam atau pelanggan-pelanggan mereka. Tindakan siasatan tersebut seharusnya dilakukan terhadap Plaintif supaya AIA tidak dimalukan dimata masyarakat.

... Plaintif ... diletakkan dengan beban bukti yang kukuh kerana kenyataan tersebut sangat dramatik dan direkaceritakan. Pada setiap masa Defendan-Defendan tidak pernah menerbitkan kenyataan tersebut untuk dilihat oleh orang awam ataupun pekerja-pekerja Life Associates dan pekerja-pekerja AIA selain unit-unit yang berkaitan dengan isu antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan kenyataan tersebut bukan berunsur fitnah atau sindiran sebaliknya merupakan justifikasi terhadap fakta yang berlaku di antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan.

... tiada penyebaran kepada pengetahuan umum. Defendan-Defendan hanya memberikan e-mel aduan kepada unit-unit yang berkaitan sahaja.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan keseluruhan kenyataan dalam perenggan tersebut bukan fitnah atau pun sindiran tetapi secara justifikasi adalah gambaran tepat berkenaan personaliti, etika kerja dan tahap professionalism Plaintif.

... Defendan-Defendan menyatakan adalah prosedur biasa bagi sebuah syarikat untuk membuat siasatan apabila ada salah laku aduan daripada awam atau pelanggan-pelanggan mereka. Tindakan siasatan tersebut seharusnya dilakukan terhadap Plaintif supaya AIA tidak dimalukan dimata masyarakat.

... Plaintif adalah ... diletakkan dengan beban bukti yang kukuh kerana kenyataan tersebut sangat dramatik dan direkaceritakan. Pada setiap masa Defendan-Defendan tidak pernah menerbitkan kenyataan tersebut untuk dilihat oleh orang awam ataupun pekerja-pekerja Life Associates dan pekerja – pekerja AIA selain unit-unit yang berkaitan dengan isu antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan.”. Issues to be tried: [62] Issues to be tried is filed only by the Plaintiff and enclosed in Enclosure C. [63] The Plaintiff raises 4 issues to be determined −

whether the Defendants email to AIA contains defamatory statements against the Plaintiff?

whether the Defendants had made defamatory statements to AIA?

whether the Plaintiff and the Defendants had executed the purported Letter of Intent for Proposed Joint Venture between LIMBO and Life Associates dated 5-5-2021?

whether the Defendants are liable for losses and damages suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the defamatory statements to AIA? The decision on 3-11-2023 [64] I dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit against the Defendants and the decision as pronounced by this Court on 3-11-2023 is as follows: “KEPUTUSAN BICARA PENUH Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan ialah mengenai perbuatan dan kenyataan fitnah terhadap Plaintif. Plaintif memplidkan bahawa aduan-aduan Defendan-Defendan terhadap Plaintif berkenaan dengan polisi insurans AIA adalah palsu. AIA telah menjalankan siasatannya terhadap Plaintif. Plaintif telah menjawab “show cause letter AIA” tersebut. Butir-butir kerugian yang ditanggung oleh Plaintif akibat daripada aduan-aduan tersebut telah mendedahkan Plaintif kepada kerugian dan perbelanjaan sebagaimana dalam perenggan 80 pernyataan tuntutan. Pliantif juga memplidkan bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah melakukan penipuan sivil dan/atau pemalsuan untuk mencemarkan dan merosakkan reputasi Plaintif. Keputusan dan dapatan Mahkamah Dalam perbicaraan, Mahkamah ini telah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi kedua-dua pihak. Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan adalah didapati bahawa aduan-aduan yang berunsur fitnah kepada AIA adalah aduan rasmi Defendan-Defendan berkenaan dengan polisi insurans yang diambil ddengan/daripada Plaintif selaku ejen insurans kepada Defendan-Defendan. Berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, “perkataan yang dipersoalkan” dan disiarkan oleh Defendan-Defendan dalam surat aduan mereka tidak membawa apa-apa maksud untuk merendahkan reputasi Plaintif SP-1 (penyiasat insurans) dan Plaintif sendiri telah memberikan keterangan dan keterangan tersebut gagal menunjukkan bahawa “perkataan yang dipersoalkan” mendedahkan Plaintif kepada kerugian, kesusahan dan perbelanjaan yang dialami oleh Plaintif. Berdasarkan penelitian Mahkamah ini selepas meneliti semua dokumen dan keterangan lisan dan dokumentar yang dibentangkan oleh pihak-pihak di hadapan Mahkamah ini, dan hujahan bertulis serta hujahan balasan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini mendapati atas imbangan kebarangkalian Plaintif gagal untuk membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Oleh yang demikian, saya menolak tuntutan Plaintif dan dengan kos sebanyak RM10,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur).”. [65] The Plaintiff is unsatisfied and aggrieved by the decision had then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The trial & the witnesses [66] On 12-9-2023, 13-9-2023 & 14-9-2023 this Court has heard the full trial. [67] The Plaintiff’s witnesses, summarily as follows: PW-1: Mr. Gershon Isidore Wilfred Assistant Manager, Investigation Department, AIA PW-2: Mr. Reezal Jai Rihan bin Abdullah (the Plaintiff) Unit Manager, AIA [68] The Defendants’ witnesses, summarily as follows: DW-1: Mr. Danesh A/L Sivadas (D1) Entrepreneur DW-2: Ragumaran A/L Doriasamy Entrepreneur DW-3: Mrs. Sumangi A/P VG Gopala Panick Admin Coordinator, Alice Smith School DW-4: Ms. Buvana A/P Kulamaran Peer 2 Peer Training Agent DW-5: Mr. Rabindra A/L Vijayapal Business Owner The Law [69] The gist of the defence is – • qualified privilege • fair comment • section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 [Act 286] – “Justification. In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.”. [70] The decision in the Federal Court (FC) in the case of Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor v. Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli [2022] 4 AMR 695; [2022] 3 MLJ 758; and [2011] 5 CLJ 487, Y.A.A Azahar Mohamad CJ (Malaya) [Y.A.A as he then was] held that the High Court correctly directed itself in law that in order to succeed in his defence of fair comment, the respondent will need to establish the 4 elements in Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v. Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1 −

the words complained of are comment, although they may consist or include inferences of fact;

(ii) the comment is on a matter of public interest;

(iii) the comment is based on facts; and

(iv) the comment is one which fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved. [71] In paragraph [56] FC quoted the test of “fair” comment in Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (supra) – “The trial judge quoted very aptly from the direction given in the jury by Diplock J (as he then was) in Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd at p 759: The matter which you have to decide and I emphasise this again, because it is so important, is not whether you, any of you, agree with that comment. You may all of you disagree with it, feel that is comment that is not correct. But that is not the test. I will remind you of the test once more. Could a fair-minded man, holding a strong view, holding perhaps an obstinate view, holding perhaps a prejudicial view – could a fair-minded man have been capable of writing this?”. [72] The Federal Court in the case of Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn. Bhd. v. Hue Shieh Lee [2019] 3 CLJ 729 held – “The Law on Defamation [29] Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matters containing untrue imputation against the reputation of the plaintiff… [30] In Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 CLJ 152; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 321, His Lordship Mohamed Dzaiddin J (as he then was) has dearly laid down the necessary procedure in establishing claim for libel (with which we agree), when he said at p. 155: In our law on libel, which is governed by the Defamation Act 1957, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show

the words are defamatory: (2) the words refer to the plaintiff: and (3) the words were published. …”. [31] In other words, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of defamation, which are: (i) the plaintiff must show that the statement bears defamatory imputations; (ii) the statement must refer to or reflect upon the plaintiff’s reputation; and (iii) the statement must have been published to a third person by the defendant.”. [73] The Court of Appeal through the judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in the case of Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v. The China Press Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 461; [1999] 1 MLJ 371 where it was held that – “In my judgment; the test which is to be applied lies in the question: do the words published in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the Plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part? If the question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory. …”. [74] The case of Syed Husin Ali v. Sharikat Penchetakan Utusan Melayu Bhd & Anor [1973] 1 LNS 146; [1973] 2 MLJ 56 where his Lordship Mohamed Azmi J (as he then was), quoting Gatley on Libel and Slander, 6th edn, p. 4 had stated as follows: “There is no wholly satisfactory definition of a defamatory imputation. Any imputation which may tend ‘to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, ‘to cut him off from society,’ or ‘to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule,’ is defamatory of him. An imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published.”. Further, at p. 14, para 31, Gatley says: A defamatory imputation is one to a man’s discredit, or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure his reputation in his office, trade or profession, or to injure his financial credit. The standard of opinion is that of right-thinking persons generally. To be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on a person’s reputation; the law looks only to its tendency. Thus, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes the statement to be true. Another test is: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?”. [75] Ong Hock Sim FJ in Rajagopal v. Rajan [1972] 1 MLJ 45 Federal Court [Tab C] said at page 47 B-D – “In deciding whether the words complained of were per se defamatory, it would be necessary to construe the words in their natural and ordinary meaning in the sense in which reasonable men of ordinary intelligence would like to understand them. … that the words complained of have a secondary meaning by innuendo, consideration must be taken as to the manner of their publication and the persons to whom they were published.”. At page 47 G-H – “It is not what the appellant meant that is relevant in construing whether the words are defamatory but what the words convey to a reasonable person to whom they are published.”. [76] Y.A Mary Lim JCA (as Y.A then was) at page 522 in Raja Syahrir bin Abu Bakar & Anor v. Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Other Appeals [2020] 3 MLJ 482 Court of Appeal further dealt with the defence of qualified privilege. The case of Dato Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail & Anor v. Nurul Izzah bt Anwar & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 726 was cited and referred – “[55] A defence of qualified privilege is founded on the need or duty on the part of the alleged defamer to impart information to the public at large and that there is a duty on the part of the public to receive that information…Although the law of defamation exists to protect reputations, it is recognised that in particular situations it is to the benefit of society generally for people to be able to communicate without fear of being sued for defamation. This is so despite the risk that a person’s reputation will be damaged and they will not be able to restore it by bringing a claim for defamation. Its rationale resides in the wider consideration that a general public good in such exercise overrides the need to protect individual reputation…”. Evaluation & Findings of this Court [77] This defamation suit by the Plaintiff against the Defendants was based on the complaints made by the Defendants to the AIA, i.e. the Plaintiff’s employer. The question is whether the complaints pertaining to the insurance policies taken by the D1 contained words that tend to lower the Plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society? (“the impugned statements”). [78] It is undisputed that the complaints made by the Defendants are not poison pen letter or surat layang as in Malay language. It is directed to the insurance company, the correct and related party pertaining to the complaints. [79] It is also undisputed that the complaints are not swept under the carpet or it is not ignored by AIA. [80] The matters raised and/or complained by the Defendans had been investigated and PW-1 was assigned to investigate the Defendants’ complaints. In his testimony, PW-1 stated that the Plaintiff is the AIA’s agent, so PW-1 would copy the complaints to Chiew Chee Sian (District Manager, which is someone because the Plaintiff was Unit Manager at that time so he will be reporting to District Manager); Tan San San/Susan Tan (Chief Agency Officer); Teoh Chee Kiang, Terence Teoh (Senior Director of Agency); and Teo Sze Ming, Damond Teo (Director of the Agency). [81] PW-1 confirmed that if there is any fraudulent conduct or misconduct by the agent, generally resulted termination of the agent contract. [82] This Court, after thoroughly, pay her attention with regard to every detail, understanding of the subject and with great care analysing the Plaintiff claims, finds that the complaints and the accusations made by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are not defamatory. [83] Let me starts with documents in Common Bundle (B1) at pages 78 to 81, namely –

the email dated 11-8-2021 at 11.44 AM, with D1’s name, and mobile phone number were stated and the title of the email was “FRAUD/MOST URGENT” and was addressed to my.customer@aia.com” and D1 wrote to – AIA Fraud & Compliance Dept Level 10, Menara AIA, 99 Jalan Ampang 50450 Kuala Lumpur This email was cc to admin@limbobiz.com. The contents as per the email – “I’m communicating this information in good faith to this concerned dept. In order to assess the plight, I and my Key Managerial Personnel had faced. (“I”, “We”, “Us” or “Our”). This is to intimate and inform this dept that “Fraud” had taken place through Life Associates Sdn Bhd via its Mr. Managing Director Mr. Reezal Jai Rihan bin Abdullah (hereinafter referred as “Fraudster”). The said Fraudster had deceived us and took up insurance policies in our name (the fund provided him were meant for a different privileged project) for which we never agreed to in the very instance, nor were the policies taken with our volition, “as is” those policies have not been signed by us and acknowledged by us or even applied by us. Kindly provide us with reason why this incident could happen in your organization, take steps to cancel the policies and refund the rightful amount in total to each individual policy holder saving’s A/c. (Detail provided below) BUVANA A/P KULAMARAN NRIC NO.: xxx POLICY NO.: xxx DANESH A/L SIVADAS NRIC NO.: xxx POLICY NO.: xxx”.

AIA’s reply to D1’s email can be seen at page 79, AIA’s email dated 12-8-2021 at 2.19, from My.customer@aia.com, that requested D1 to provide AIA with any evidence or supporting documents which may include voice recordings, emails, WhatsApp messages, SMSes for example, for AIA to substantiate the allegations against the abovementioned agent. AIA has given D1 the timeline that is by 16-8-2021.

AIA’s reply to D1’s email dated 17-8-2021 can be seen at page 81 whereby AIA had referred to D1’s email dated 14- 8-2021 and had further requested D1 to provide clarification on the certain matters. AIA also had stated that “We have escalated the matter to the relevant departments for review”. [84] PW-1 as the investigating officer has sent a letter dated 23-8-2021 by email to the Plaintiff and the relevant portions of the contents are – • informing the Plaintiff about the Defendants’ complaint to the D1 and D2 insurance policies that were registered by the Plaintiff. • the allegations made by the Defendants were stated. • the Plaintiff is given 7 days to provide the Investigation Department in writing the answers to the allegations. • The note stated “Please take note that in the event you fail to provide us with answers to the allegations within the stipulated time, it will be construed by us that you admit to the allegations and in such an event we shall proceed to take all necessary action against you in accordance with your contract with AIA Bhd & AIA Public Takaful Berhad.”. • this email was cc to: DM Chiew Chee Sian. CAO Tan San San, Susan. SDOA Teoh Chee Kiang, Terence. DOA Teo Sze Ming, Damond. [85] D2 has forwarded the AIA’s email dated 25-8-2021 to the Defendants’ solicitors (please refer to document at page 86/B1) where AIA’s approval to cancel and refund the amounts paid for D1’s and D2’s policies. [86] The fact that the Defendants had addressed the complaints to AIA is good enough to rule out that the Defendants querries and suspicious about the insurance policies taken through the Plaintiff. After the closure of the investigation, AIA’s action is to refund the Defendants. Nothing was said about “why this incident could happen in AIA” and the Plaintiff’s position in AIA. [87] I quoted the learned counsel for the Defendants authority of case that laid out the principle with regards to defamation claim by Y.A Abdul Wahab Patail in the case of Subramaniam a/l Paramasivam v. Courts Mammoth Bhd & Anor [2010] 9 MLJ 363 – “(6) There is no cause of action in defamation where a bona fide complaint made to a professional disciplinary authority against a professional is dismissed. The threat of litigation would only intimidate persons with bona fide complaints from making a complaint, and deny members of the public their right of protection from unprofessional professionals. In the instant case, the defendants did have a bona fide grievance when they issued the letter of termination and the letter of complaint. It was thus not necessary to consider the defence of justification.”. [88] The Defendants were well within their rights to file complaints against the Plaintiff, as they were negatively impacted by the Plaintiff's unprofessional behavior. Their complaint emails were made in good faith and were intended to protect the public’s interests by preventing potential fraud against other customers. Submitting a complaint to AIA's customer service email was recognized and endorsed by AIA as a legitimate channel for customers or the public to register complaints against any of their agents. [89] I quoted the learned counsel for the Defendants authority of case in Ernest Cheong Yong Yin (suing in the name and style Ernest Cheong PTL Chartered Surveyors) v. Low Kim Yap & Ors [2006] 5 MLJ 780 – “The defendants were the very people who were directly affected by the act of the plaintiff, a registered valuer who had clothed himself in the guise of a company to protect himself from the laws that govern his professional conduct (see para 5). The defendants were exercising their rights given by the law to complain against a registered valuer. The complaints were done in accordance with a written law that provides for a proper avenue of complaint. A claim for defamation must be based on an original publication or statement and the alleged defamatory statement must be particularized in accordance with O 78 r 3 RHC. Both these requirements were absent in this case (see para 19). As the defendants had complied with the procedure for making complaints, no malice could be inferred. There was no evidence that the complaints were communicated to any person outside the complaint process. Allowing a defamation suit of this nature to continue, would defeat the whole purpose of the complaint process set up by law and must not be encouraged. If claims of this nature were allowed, the floodgates would be open to defamation suits whenever disciplinary bodies receive complaints from the public against their members.”. [90] By applying the principles established in both cases, the Plaintiff's claim has faltered, as the Plaintiff was unable to substantiate, on the balance of probabilities, that defamatory statements were made by the Defendants against him. [91] This Court agrees with the learned counsel for the Defendants’ submission that – “The Plaintiff had failed to state in his Statement of Claim the exact words in the Defendants’ emails of complaints allegedly being defamatory. In his Statement of Claim, specifically at paragraph 53 on page 61 of Ikatan Pliding, the Plaintiff indeed referenced the statements crafted by SP1 as the defamatory statements. These phrases, as indicated in his Statement of Claim, did not originate from the Defendants themselves. The emails of complaints were not published to 3rd party.”. [92] As for the Plaintiff's claim of the second complaint, this Court is of the view that it does not have a basis in reality and does not exist. Both parties were unable to locate any evidence within the bundled documents to support the existence of the second complaint. [93] The Court of Appeal in Dato’ Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail & Anor (supra) did not disturb the High Court’s finding that on failure to prove malice. In this regard, the Federal Court held that “it is trite law that proof of malice defeats the defence of fair comment because a comment that is made maliciously is not fair comment.”. Here, in this case, the Defendants did make the complaints against the Plaintiff to AIA but the basis of the complaint is about the Defendants querries that need the action/explanation from AIA. The complaints against the Plaintiff are fair and no malice. [94] The third issues that is whether the Plaintiff and the Defendants had executed the purported Letter of Intent for Proposed Joint Venture Between LIMBO and Life Associates dated 5-5-2021, the documents tendered before this Court had proved that the existence of Letter of Intent which is marked as Exhibit P1 is a document to support the existence of the NDA and it serves as evidence of a business collaboration between the Plaintiff and the LIMBO. [95] The issue raised about the digital signature for the NDA and alleged to be forged and that the Plaintiff sought to imply that he had been coerced into executing the NDA through tactics employed by the Defendants, the Defendants had revealed that the Plaintiff had received a digital version of the NDA and had ample time to execute it without any pressure. It was also noted that the Defendants were not present during the Plaintiff's execution of the NDA [96] I have read the learned counsel for the Plaintiff’s submission in reply, i.e. − “The Defamatory Statements have been sufficiently pleaded with respect to the Defendants contention, the Plaintiff submits that through the pleadings before this Honourable Court, the Plaintiff had pleaded the essential Defamatory Statement and related facts giving rise to the Plaintiff's claim. In this regard, the Plaintiff emphasises that the letter dated 23.8.2021 from AlA bearing the Defamatory Statement was issued as direct consequence of the Defendants emails dated 11.8.2021 and 14.8.2021 (reference, pg. 78-79 of Bundle B1) (“Defendants’ email to AIA"). This was confirmed by SP-1, the AIA’s Investigating Officer. The Plaintiff respectfully refers to the High Court decision in Keith Richard Judd v Suppayah a/l Krishnan [2016] 9 MLJ 380 – [50] Having considered the plaintiff's statement of claim, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has particularised the facts of each email that is defamatory of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has particularised the relevant facts from the whole contents of each email which brings the imputation that expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt in the mind of a reasonable man. The two authorities cited by the defendant are distinguishable on its facts. [61] It is also my findings that the said emails were sent by the defendant to third parties based on the said emails. the evidence of the plaintiff and PW3 who also received most of the emails referred to earlier. PW3 testified that PW3 confirmed that the emails were sent by the defendant as the defendant had referred to these emails many times during meetings. PW3 evidence was also corroborated by PW2 on this issue.” Premised on the High Court decision of Keith Richard, it is submitted that the Plaintiff have fulfilled the prerequisite requirements. That the Letter of Intent (P1): (i) The legitimacy of the Letter of had been executed by the intent is challenged by the Plaintiff Plaintiff herein. (ii) The Defendants did not provide any supporting evidence to prove that the Letter of Intent were executed between the parties. ON THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF FRAUD AND FORGERY: In connection thereto, the Plaintiff further submits that the Defendants despite alleging the said Letter of Intent was executed and delivered to the Plaintiff, had failed to raise any supporting evidence of the execution of the same. In this regard, a presumption against the Defendants can be drawn based on Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. In this regard, it the Plaintiff's submission that the Defendants’ complaint to AlA, being the basis of the Defamatory Statement is not a “bona fide” complaint and in fact one intended to cause grievance and malice towards the Plaintiff. It is emphasised that the Defendants’ email to AIA being the basis of the Defamatory Statement were made only after the breakdown of the relationship between the parties. The Plaintiff also refers to the Federal Court decision of Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd [2021] 5 MLJ 79 whereby the Federal court held that an element in reliance on the defence of qualified privilege is the parties have attempted to verify the information published therein as held at para. 80 of the decision: [80] The second limb of the Reynolds defence of responsible journalism or qualified privilege requires the appellants to satisfy the court that the steps to gather, verify and publish the information were responsible and fair. It is evident that based on the facts of the case herein that the Defendants have failed to verify the information that it had sought to publish to AIA. Despite having avenue of communication and the Plaintiff's willingness to assist the Defendants on the Insurance Policies until 16.7.2021 (reference to, pg. 170-176 and 185 of Bundle B2), the Defendants did not attempt to verify the information published to AIA.”. [97] After looking and analysing the evidence before me, the Plaintiff has failed to prove its claims for civil fraud and/or forgery of documents by the Defendants and also to prove that it had damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation as an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry. Conclusion [98] In all the above circumstances, the subject matters in this suit against the Defendants pertaining to the Plaintiff are merely complaints that were not published to anybody except the AIA. The impugned statements are not defamatory of the Plaintiff. [99] AIA has investigated the Defendants’ complaints against the Plaintiff. The Defendants cannot be faulted for “damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation as an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry”. [100] In view of the foregoing reasons, I therefore dismiss the Plaintiff claim with costs. Dated: 23 January 2024. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court Civil NCvC12 Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Syed Mohamed Ashiq Tetuan Harold & Lam Partnership, Kuala Lumpur For the Defendants: Nurhidayaty binti Maidin together with Nurul Farhana Zaini Tetuan Nur Maidin & Co., Subang Jaya