Tan Kheng Guan (Mendakwa Bagi Pihak Dirinya Sendiri Dan Pemegang Saham Syarikat Defendan Ketiga Shigen Polycolor Sdn. Bhd., Selain Daripada Defendan Pertama Dan Defendan Kedua) v 1. ) CHU KOK KHING (PA-22NCvC-223-11/2017)

CHU KOK KHING [NO. K/P: 700916-07-5377]

EE GENG CHOON [NO. K/P: 530703-07-5112]

SHIGEN POLYCOLOR SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 566938-X]

SHIFTY TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 662037-K]

LEW THEN BOO [NO. K/P: 320120-71-5389]

TANG GAIK TENG [NO. K/P: 821002-07-5056]

SCONEY TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 738747-D]

LOO CHUI LI [NO. K/P: 700710-07-5320] 26/05/2025 15:43:33

KHOR KHUAN HWA [NO. K/P: 741016-07-5874]

SUTERA IDEA SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 853012-A]

CHU YEIN HOON [NO. K/P: 680503-07-5410]

SHINES PIGMENT MASTERBATCH (M) SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 1150173-W]

LOO TIANG MENG [NO. K/P: 410415-02-5149]

CHU SOOI TENG [NO. K/P: 410527-07-5319] …. DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUND OF JUDGEMENT [1] This is the Plaintiff’s application at Enclosure 450 for an order to commit the Contemnors i.e D1, D2, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, (except for the 3rd Defendant), Messrs Ismail Khoo & Associates, John Khoo Boo Lai and Martin Khoo Din Yuan. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff for the contempt proceedings are among others: - a. for the sentence of imprisonment against D1, D2, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12 (The Defendants), Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan; and b. to return & refund of RM7,049,286.76 which have been withdrawn and siphoned out by the Contemnors from their bank accounts. in breach of the numerous Court orders and such withdrawal have interfered with due administration of justice. [2] On 9.1.2024, an Inter-parte Injunction Order dated 9.1.2024 has been granted against all the Defendants by this Court where all the bank accounts to be frozen and there shall be no withdrawal. Despite the Injunction Order, there were withdrawal of monies by the Defendants from the bank accounts. On 29.1.2024, John Khoo, the solicitor for The Defendants has given an undertaking by way of consent not to dispose movable and immovable assets of the Defendants until disposal of the appeals. Following this the Stay Order was granted on 29.1.2024 subject to the undertaking in the presence of Martin Khoo who was fully aware of the said undertaking. The undertaking given by John Khoo is clear and unambiguous and is binding on both of them. [3] The Court of Appeal (COA) in Civil Appeal No. P-02(IM)(NCVC)- 70-01/2024 on 17.9.2024 confirm the undertaking by The Defendants not to withdraw the money from the bank accounts by making the following order: 2) This is the Appellant’s application for stay of execution and interim order to unfreeze the Appellant’s bank account. We note that on 29.1.2024 the High Court had granted a stay of the injunction dated 9.1.2024 and in para 3 of that order it is stated that the Defendant (Appellant) “Memberi akujanji untuk tidak melupuskan harta alih dan harta tidak alih sehingga pendengaran rayuan”. This means that the stay was granted pursuant to an undertaking expressly given by the Appellant counsel not to dispose of the Appellant’s movable and immovable properties until disposal of the appeal. It is clear and unambiguous that immovable property must include bank accounts. There was no appeal on the stay order and the undertaking pursuant to it. [4] Despite the undertaking and the Stay Order, The Defendants with the assistance & abetting from Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo, and Martin Khoo issued 3 letters dated 29.1.2024, 1.2.2024, and 9.2.2024 threaten the bank to unfreeze all the bank accounts and to withdraw the money, otherwise they will sue the bank for RM10 millions as damages and complained to Bank Negara Malaysia. Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo, and Martin Khoo also issued letter dated 21-5-2024 to OCBC Bank in relation to this matter. [5] During the interpleader proceeding filed by OCBC Bank, this Court confirmed that Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo, and Martin Khoo are bound by the undertaking. The COA also made the following order: - 4) There was also an interpleader order dated 24.6.2024 made pursuant to OCBC’s application where it was reiterated that there could be no up lifting of the Defendant’s bank account in OCBC. Again, there was no appeal. 5) Further, there was consequential order dated 15 July 2024 ordering compliance of the undertaking and to take all necessary action to give effect to the undertaking including but not limited to the freezing of the appellant’s account. There was also no appeal. 6) In our judgment, to allow this application would have the effect of reversing the orders of the High Court above. The undertaking was by consent and it binds the parties thereto. We are obliged to give effect to it even if it intended something different. [6] Despite knowing the Injunction Order dated 9.1.2024, Stay Order dated 291-2024 comprising their undertaking, Interpleader Order dated 24.6.2024, and Consequential Order dated 15.7.2024, The Defendants withdrew substantial amounts of monies RM7,049,286.76 from their bank accounts from January 2024 to June 2024. This can be shown and proven by the bank statements tendered to the court by the 8 bank officers who testified in Court during the contempt proceeding. [7] According to The Defendants, the Court Order dated 29.1.2024 is unclear and had caused confusion to the parties and bankers since the Order did not mention any bank accounts, money or cash in specific. Although the stay order was served to all the banks by the Defendants but upon the advice of their legal advisers/ external legal team, the banks did not freeze the accounts and allow the withdrawal by The Defendants to pay the salary of their employees, living expenses and operation of companies. [8] In light of the bank statements and testimonies given by the 8 bank officers, it is clear, conclusive and undisputed evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the Defendants have committed a contempt of the court orders when they continuously, knowingly, deliberately despite numerous court orders and warnings from the court, siphoned and withdrew RM7,049,286.76 out from their bank accounts. It is also proven beyond reasonable doubt that Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan, have assisted and abetted D1 - D12 (except D3) in breach of court orders and interfered with due administration of justice which also amount to contempt of court. [9] The law of contempt is wide enough to cover not only those who are bound by the court order, but other parties who assist the disobedience to the court order. Thus, a person, who knowingly impeded or interfered with the administration of justice in an action between two other parties, was guilty of contempt of court notwithstanding that he was neither named in any order of the court nor had assisted a person against whom an order. Oswald’s Contempt of Court (3rd Ed) at page 6 gives a general definition of contempt of Court as follows: “To speak generally, contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to brings the authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants, or their witnesses during the litigation.” [10] The Federal Court in Tan Sri Dato’ (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors [2012] 3 MLJ 458 and Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd v Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd [2002] 4 MLJ 241 held that to constitute a contempt of court, there must be an act or omission which tends to interfere with the due administration of justice. [11] The proposed contemnors, D1 to D12 (except D3), Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo, and Martin Khoo knowing all court orders, they again with the assistance from Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo, and Martin Khoo, knowingly, deliberately and continuously withdrawn RM7,049,286.76. [12] The bank statements tendered to this Court and admitted as evidence and the 8 bank officers have also come to the court on 16.12.2024 to confirm the withdrawal made by the Defendants, and also confirm the total amount of withdrawal of RM7,049,286.76. Here I am satisfied that all the Defendants have withdrawn the money in defiance of the Order. The Defendants except (D1) did not appear in this Court to deny such withdrawal made. Such failure to deny or contradict a positive assertion upon a material issue is usually treated as an admission of the fact so asserted. (see The Court of Appeal in Pertiwi Prestij Sdn Bhd v Damai Bistari Sdn Bhd [2019] 5 MLRA 228). [13] At all material times, the Defendants are represented by their solicitors, ie. Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates, John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan. John Khoo Boo Lai on 29.1.2024 has personally given the under taking not to dispose movable and immovable assets, and Martin Khoo was also present during the hearing when the undertaking was given, and thus both of them are fully aware of such undertaking contained in the Stay Order dated 29.1.2024. [14] Despite the said Court Order and/or the undertaking at para (iii) of the Court Order, I am of the view that John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan from Messrs Ismail Khoo & Associates have failed to advise their clients to uphold and abide by the undertaking and stay order. It is beyond comprehension that as a practising advocate and solicitor John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan had advised their clients, drafting, writing and issuing a demand letter dated 29.1.2024 to 3 banks to demand the said banks to unfreeze all the bank accounts of their clients, which is against the undertaking given by them earlier. Again On 1.2.2024, they have knowingly assisted their clients in issuing another demand letter dated 1.2.2024 to 4 banks and a letter dated 9.2.2024 to 11 banks to further demand the said banks to unfreeze all the bank accounts of their clients. [15] The undertaking given by John Khoo is clear and unambiguous and is binding on all the parties, and it includes bank account. Therefore, such undertaking not to withdraw the money from the bank accounts is undisputed. It is clear and unambiguous that immovable property must include bank accounts. There was no appeal on the stay order and the undertaking pursuant to it. The undertaking was by consent and it binds the parties thereto. This means that the stay was granted pursuant to an undertaking expressly given by the John Khoo and Martin Khoo not to dispose of the Defendants movable and immovable properties until disposal of the appeal. [16] John Khoo and Martin Khoo being officers of the court, carries the duty to uphold and abide the Court’s Order and acted in total ignorance of the Stay Order. As an advocate and solicitor, both of them have the primary duty as officer of the Court is to ensure the rules of court are observed, and to respect the order issued by the Court. They should always act in a responsible manner and in particular they should not breach the law, failing which they must face the consequences. They are to take proactive steps to ensure to advise the client not only of the matters where advise is specifically requested but also in relation to matters which the solicitor acting with reasonable skill and diligent would foresee as a risk to the client and on that score they as solicitor had committed a serious offence. From the above evidence, I am of the view that both solicitors; John Khoo and Martin Khoo have failed to advise their clients to uphold and abide by the undertaking. [17] Here, I am of the view that both of them had failed in their professional duty as an officer of the Court. The RM7,049,286.76 withdrawn by the respective Defendants could not have been done so without the advice and assistance from their lawyers namely John Khoo and Martin Khoo. [18] On 17.9.2024 the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. P-02 (IM) (NCVC)-70-01/2024 affirmed that such undertaking not to withdraw the money from the bank accounts is undisputed. On 1.11.2024, the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. P-02(IM)(NCVC)-70-01/2024 & P- 02(IM)(NCVC)-71-01/2024 further confirmed that decision on undertaking, Stay Order and Interpleader Order, and Consequential Order by saying that they are strictly bound by all these the orders. The Court Order is clear and not confusing for the banks to understand the terms of the order made. [19] For the reasons above, I am absolutely satisfied that contempt of court has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against all the Defendants including John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan for intentional disobedience of the Court Order which clearly intended to frustrate or obstruct the administration of justice. There were ample facts and sufficient evidence pointing manifestly to the act of contempt by all the Defendants (except D3 and Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates) including John Khoo Boo Lai, and Martin Khoo Ding Yuan. Therefore, all of them had committed an act of contempt of court when they breached the Order, an act which tends to interfere with the due administration of justice. [20] As to the sum of RM7,049,286.76 that has been withdrawn by D1, D2, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11and D12, I order the sum to be returned and refunded to respective account within 30 days of this Order and to be maintained in the bank accounts. Failure to return the money within the time frame given shall be a continuing breach of the Court Order for contempt. NAME OF CONTEMNORS AMOUNT OF MONIES

Ee Geng Choon (D2) 29, 224.34 2. Shifty Technology Sdn. Bhd (D4)

Tang Gaik Teng (D6) 445,875.94 4. Sconey Technology Sdn. Bhd. (D7) 215,681.23 5. Loo Chui Li (D8) RM1,525,602.91 6. Khor Khuan Hwa (D9) 275,428.20 7. Sutera Idea Sdn. Bhd. (D10) 4,789.34 11 8. Chu Yein Hoon (D11) 369,083.82 9. Shines Pigment Masterbatch (M) Sdn. Bhd. (D12) RM1,013,892.50 [21] After taking into account the mitigation presented, I impose the following: a. RM20,000.00 each Defendants (except 3rd and Messrs Ismail, Khoo & Associates) in default 2 weeks imprisonment; b. RM30,000.00 each against John Khoo and Martin Khoo in default 3 weeks imprisonment; c. Failure to return the sum of RM7,049,286.76 within 30 days, the RM30,000.00 each Defendants in default 3 weeks imprisonment. SGD (ROZANA BINTI ALI YUSOFF) Judge High Court of Penang Dated on 26th May 2025. Counsel Tan Wei Cheat, Low Kai Xin and Kelvin Leong Chun Fai (Messrs Tan Wei Cheat & Co.) for the Plaintiff. John Khoo and Martin Khoo (Messrs Ismail Khoo & Associates) for the Defendants.