Tan Sri Rahim Bin Tamby Chik v the Rain Maker Mgmt Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-567-08/2021)

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-22NCvC-567-08/2021 ANTARA TAN SRI A RAHIM BIN TAMBY CHIK (NO. K/P: 500410-04-5019) ….. PLAINTIF DAN

1. THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 201801009854 (1271868-U))

2. MY PREMIER TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 200501037247 (719395-T)) ….. DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN BRIGHT WORLD MARKETING PTE LTD (No. UEC: 201312420H) ….. PENCELAH 09/05/2026 06:40:46 WA-22NCvC-567-08/2021 Kand. 216 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN

1. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan ini adalah seperti yang berikut:

(1) Defendan-Defendan secara bersesama dan berasingan membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM3,000,000.00, iaitu modal yang dilaburkan oleh Plaintif;

(2) Defendan-Defendan secara bersesama dan berasingan membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM37,500.00, iaitu bayaran ke-19 yang tertunggak kepada Plaintif sejak 31.3.2020; atau

(1) Defendan Pertama membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM3,000,000.00, iaitu modal yang dilaburkan oleh Plaintif; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3

(2) Defendan Pertama membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM37,500.00, iaitu bayaran ke-19 yang tertunggak kepada Plaintif sejak 31.3.2020; atau

(1) Defendan Kedua membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM3,000,000.00, iaitu modal yang dilaburkan oleh Plaintif;

(2) Defendan Kedua membayar kepada Plaintif sejumlah RM37,500.00, iaitu bayaran ke-19 yang tertunggak kepada Plaintif sejak 31.3.2020;

2. Dalam kes ini, Plaintif telah menarik balik tuntutannya terhadap Defendan Pertama dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula atas alasan bahawa syarikat Defendan Pertama telah digulung. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif dalam tindakan ini telah diteruskan hanya terhadap Defendan Kedua sahaja.

3. Tuntutan balas Defendan Kedua terhadap Plaintif pula adalah seperti yang berikut:

4. Setelah suatu perbicaraan penuh dijalankan dengan seorang (1) saksi Plaintif dan dua (2) orang saksi Defendan Kedua dan setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti, menilai dan mempertimbangkan segala pliding, keterangan lisan dan dokumentar serta penghujahan kedua-dua pihak Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati dan mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan Kedua atas imbangan kebarangkalian, manakala Defendan Kedua pula telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutan balasnya terhadap Plaintif atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini telah menolak tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua dan membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan Kedua terhadap Plaintif seperti yang berikut:

(ii) satu deklarasi bahawa injunksi mareva terhadap Defendan Kedua adalah salah dan berniat mala fide;

5. Alasan Mahkamah ini adalah seperti di bawah. FAKTA DAN LATAR BELAKANG KES

6. Plaintif adalah seorang individu yang mempunyai alamat kediamannya di No. 7, Jalan Medang, Bukit Bandaraya Bangsar, 59100 Kuala Lumpur.

7. Defendan Pertama adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di bawah Akta Syarikat 2016. Alamat berdaftar Defendan Pertama ialah di 100.3.041 129 Offices, Blok J, Jaya One, 72A, Jalan Universiti, Seksyen 13, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor dan alamat perniagaannya adalah di 20-09, Tingkat 20, Binjai 8, Premium Soho, Lorong Binjai, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

8. Defendan Kedua adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965. Alamat berdaftar dan alamat perniagaan **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Defendan Kedua ialah di 21-9, Office Suites, 1 Mont’ Kiara, No. 1, Jalan Kiara, Mont’ Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

9. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan dalam tindakan ini adalah berasaskan kepada dokumen-dokumen berikut:

Jadual Perkhidmatan 1 dan Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk antara Asia Cornerstone Asset Management Company Limited (“ACAM”) dengan Plaintif (“Service Schedule 1 and Master Service Agreement”) (rujuk muka surat 59 hingga 74 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama); dan (e)

Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan yang disediakan oleh ACAM (“Returns Payment Schedule”) (rujuk muka surat 75 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 10. Melalui dokumen-dokumen di atas dan surat-surat di muka surat 76 hingga 92 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama, fakta kes ini boleh dirumuskan seperti yang berikut: (a) Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk melabur sebanyak RM3,000,000.00 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut”) dalam dana amanah SPV1- 2018-06-149 yang diwujudkan oleh ACAM (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Dana Amanah tersebut”); (b) pelaburan Plaintif dalam Dana Amanah tersebut adalah untuk tempoh 24 bulan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut”); (c) melalui Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut, Plaintif telah dijanjikan pembayaran pulangan seperti mana dalam

Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan yang disediakan oleh ACAM, iaitu sebanyak RM37,500.00 sebulan untuk tempoh 24 bulan, iaitu mulai bulan September 2018 hingga bulan Ogos 2020, dan pembayaran pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut pada bulan yang ke-25; (d) Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk melantik ACAM yang beribu pejabat di Hong Kong untuk mengurus dan mentadbir Dana Amanah tersebut; (e) Defendan Pertama adalah ejen ACAM di Malaysia yang bertanggungjawab, inter alia, untuk membuat pemasaran, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 komunikasi dan pembayaran pulangan kepada pelabur-pelabur yang melabur dalam Dana Amanah tersebut, termasuk Plaintif; (f) Defendan Kedua telah dilantik oleh Plaintif sebagai pemegang amanah bagi Dana Amanah tersebut; (g) Defendan Kedua telah mendepositkan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut ke dalam akaun Dana Amanah tersebut seperti mana arahan Plaintif; dan (h) Plaintif hanya mendapat pembayaran pulangan bulanan untuk tempoh 23 bulan sahaja dan tidak menerima pembayaran pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 serta Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut seperti yang dijanjikan dalam

Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan tersebut. 11. Disebabkan Plaintif tidak menerima pembayaran pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 dan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut, maka Plaintif telah memulakan tindakan ini terhadap Defendan-Defendan. ISU BERBANGKIT 12. Isu yang berbangkit dalam tindakan ini ialah sama ada Defendan Kedua sebagai pemegang amanah bertanggungjawab untuk membayar ganti rugi kepada Plaintif atas kegagalan ACAM dan/atau Defendan Pertama membuat pembayaran pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 dan pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut kepada Plaintif. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 ANALISIS DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH 13. Berdasarkan seksyen 101 dan seksyen 102 Akta Keterangan 1950 [Akta 56], beban pembuktian dalam sesuatu kes sivil adalah terletak pada setiap masa pada plaintif atau pihak yang menghendaki Mahkamah untuk memberikan penghakiman kepadanya, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “Burden of proof Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. On whom burden of proof lies [Penekanan ditambah] 14. Prinsip undang-undang ini telahpun diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Jeffrey Tan FCJ dalam kes Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo Achi alias Sona Lena Alamelo Acho, deceased) & Anor [2017] 4 MLJ 697; [2017] 3 MLRA 501 seperti yang berikut: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 “[49] The expression ‘onus of proof’ does not appear in the Evidence Act. Only the expression ‘burden of proof’ appears in ss 101-103 of the Evidence Act. But there is a difference between the sense of the expression ‘burden of proof’ in s 101 and the sense of that same expression in s 102. [50] In International Times & Ors v Leong Ho Yuen [1980] 2 MLJ 86, Salleh Abas FCJ (as he then was), delivering the judgment of the court, said that the first sense of the expression ‘burden of proof’ in s 101 is the burden to establish the case which rests throughout on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, while the second sense of the expression ‘burden of proof’ in s 102 is the burden to adduce evidence: For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the two senses in which the expressions burden of proof and onus of proof are used (Nanji & Co v Jatashankar Dossa & Ors AIR 1961 SC 1474 1748 and Raghavamma v Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136-143). The first sense, signified by the expression burden of proof such as referred to in s 101 of the Evidence Act is the burden of establishing a case and this rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. The appellants in the present appeal relied on justification and fair comment. Therefore, the burden of proving these defences rests entirely upon them (Gatley on Libel and Slander 7th Ed, paras 351 and 354). The second sense referred to as onus of proof, on the other hand, relates to the responsibility of adducing evidence in order to discharge the burden of proof. The onus as opposed to burden is not stable and constantly shifts during the trial from one side to the other according to the scale of evidence and other preponderates. Such shifting is one continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. According to ss 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, if the party with whom this onus lies whether initially or subsequently as a result of its shifting does not give any or further evidence or gives evidence which is not sufficient, such **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 party must fail. It is this onus that we are concerned with in the present appeal. [51] ‘There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts’ (Addagada Raghavamma And Anr v Addagada Chenchamma And Anr 1964 SCR (2) 933). [52] The ‘burden of proof’ in s 101 is the burden to establish a case which rests throughout on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. The ‘burden of proof’ in s 102 is the burden to adduce evidence, to make out or rebut the claim. The ‘burden of proof’ in s 102 shifts from one side to the other according to the weight of the evidence. To differentiate the sense used, the ‘burden of proof’ in s 101 is ‘burden of proof’, while the ‘burden of proof’ in ss 102 and 103 is dubbed ‘onus of proof’. In some jurisdictions, the s 101 ‘burden of proof’ is labelled ‘legal burden’ while the s 102 burden of proof’ is referred to as ‘evidential burden’. [53] In Ranchhodbhai Somabhai And Anr v Babubhai Bhailalbhai And Ors AIR 1982 Guj 308, P Desai and S Majmudar thus illustrated the ‘burden of proof’ to establish the case which never shifts and the shifting burden to adduce evidence in the context of ss 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act which are identical to ss 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act: It is also well to bear in mind that there is an essential distinction between ‘burden of proof’ and ‘onus of proof’; burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence (see Raghavamma v Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136). Burden of proof has two distinct meanings, namely, (i) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleadings, and (ii) the burden **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 of proof as a matter of adducing evidence. Section 101 of the Evidence Act deals with the former and Section 102 of the Evidence Act with the latter. The first remains constant but the second shifts. In a claim application, therefore, the burden of proof, in the first sense, certainly lies on the claimant. If he examines himself and his witness, if any, and if the evidence, tested in the light of the principles set out above, is found to be acceptable, the onus shifts on the tortfeasor to prove those circumstances, if any, which dislodge the assertions of the claimants. If the tortfeasor fails to prove before the Court any fact or circumstance which tends to affect the evidence led by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to ask the Court to hold that he has established the case and, on that basis, to make a just award it would thus appear, that though the legal burden — the burden as a matter of law and pleadings — remains constant on the claimant, the burden as a matter of adducing evidence changes often times as the trial of the claim petition progresses. [54] Section 101(1) provides that ‘Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist’. ‘Section 101 states that the initial burden of proving a prima facie case in his favour is cast on the plaintiff …’ (Woodroffe and Amir Ali, Law of Evidence (19th Ed Vol 3) at p 3194). Illustration (b) to s 101 puts it beyond doubt that the ‘burden of proof’ rests throughout on the plaintiff. Section 102 provides that ‘The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side’. ‘The initial onus of proving the case is always on the plaintiff’ (Sarkar Law of Evidence 16th Ed at p 1593). Illustration (a) to s 102 puts it beyond doubt that a plaintiff has the initial onus of proof. [55] But ‘when (the plaintiff) gives such evidence as will support a prima facie case, the onus shifts on to the defendant, to adduce rebutting evidence **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 to meet the case made out by the plaintiff. As the case continues to develop, the onus may shift back again to the plaintiff. It is not easy to decide at what particular stage, in the course of the evidence, the onus shifts from one side to the other. When after the entire evidence has been adduced, the tribunal feels it cannot make up its mind as to which of the versions is true, it will hold that the party on whom the burden lies has not discharged the burden, but if it has, on the evidence, no difficulty arriving at a definite conclusion, then the burden of proof on the pleading recedes into the background’ (Woodroffe and Amir Ali, at p 3194; see also Abrath v The North Eastern Railway Company at p 452). ‘… the onus of proof may shift … but the question must ultimately arise whether the person who is bound to prove the affirmative of the issue … has discharged … that burden’ (Jane Wakelin v The London and South Western Railway Company (1886) 12 App Cas 41 per Lord Halsbury LC) or proved ‘his case sufficiently to justify a judgment in his favour’ (Stoney v Eastbourne Rural District Council [1927] 1 Ch 367 at p 397 per Lord Hanworth MR). [56] Thus, a plaintiff has both the burden of proof as well as the initial onus of proof. In Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd [2007] 4 SLR 855, the Singapore Court of Appeal per VK Rajah JCA, delivering the judgment of the court, explained that at the start of the plaintiff’s case the burden of proof and the onus of proof coincide: … at the start of the plaintiff’s case, the legal burden of proving the existence of any relevant fact that the plaintiff must prove and the evidential burden of some (not inherently incredible) evidence of the existence of such fact coincide. Upon adduction of that evidence, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant, as the case may be, to adduce some evidence in rebuttal. If no evidence in rebuttal is adduced, the court may conclude from the evidence of the defendant. If, on the other hand, evidence in rebuttal is adduced, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff. If, ultimately, the evidential burden **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 comes to rest on the defendant, the legal burden of proof of the relevant fact would have been discharged by the plaintiff. The legal burden of proof — a permanent and enduring burden — does not shift. A party who has the legal burden of proof on any issue must discharge it throughout. Sometimes, the legal burden is spoken of, inaccurately, as ‘shifting’; but what is truly meant is that another issue has been engaged, on which the opposite party hears the legal burden of proof. [57] The rule is that ‘the onus of proof of any particular fact lies on the party who alleges it, not on him who denies it; et incumbit probation qui decit, non qui negat, Actori incibit probation … The plaintiff is bound in the first instance, to show a prima facie case, and if he leaves it imperfect, the court will not assist him. Hence the maxim Potior est condition defendantis. A plaintiff cannot obviously advantage himself by the weakness of the defence. A plaintiff’s case must stand or fall upon the evidence adduced by him. When, however, the defendant, or either litigant party, instead of denying what is alleged against him, relies on some new matter which, if true, is an answer to it, the burden of proof changes sides; and he, in his turn, is bound to show a prima facie case at least and, if he leaves it imperfect, the court will not assist him.”. [Penekanan ditambah] 15. Prinsip undang-undang yang sama turut diputuskan oleh Mahkamah atasan dalam kes Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 CLJ 740; [1998] 1 MLRA 178, Keruntum Sdn Bhd v The Director of Forests & Ors [2017] 3 MLJ 281; [2017] 4 MLRA 277 dan Hong Yik Trading v Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 MLJ 398; [2017] 4 MLRA 89. 16. Berdasarkan nas-nas undang-undang di atas, adalah jelas bahawa beban pembuktian dalam sesuatu kes sivil sentiasa terletak **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 pada bahu pihak plaintif atau pihak yang menuntut dan ia adalah atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Kegagalan pihak plaintif atau pihak yang menuntut berbuat demikian akan menyebabkan tuntutan mereka ditolak oleh Mahkamah. 17. Dalam kes ini, setelah Mahkamah ini meneliti, menilai dan menimbang segala pliding dan keterangan yang dikemukakan dalam Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan Kedua atas imbangan kebarangkalian, manakala Defendan Kedua pula telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutan balasnya terhadap Plaintif atas imbangan kebarangkalian. 18. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini telah menolak keseluruhan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua dan membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan Kedua terhadap Plaintif seperti mana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 4 di atas. 19. Alasan dan asas Mahkamah ini membuat dapatan dan keputusan tersebut adalah seperti di bawah. 20. Pertama, berdasarkan Deklarasi Amanah 1, Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk dan Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan tersebut, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa Plaintif (“Settlor/ Investor”) sebagai pelabur – (i) telah bersetuju melantik ACAM (“Advisor”) sebagai pengurus dan pentadbir Dana Amanah tersebut; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (ii) telah bersetuju melantik Defendan Kedua (“Trustee”) sebagai pemegang amanah bagi Dana Amanah tersebut; (iii) telah memberi mandat kepada Defendan Kedua untuk mengeluarkan Dana Amanah tersebut kepada ACAM seperti mana arahan ACAM; dan (iv) telah bersetuju dengan Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan yang dijanjikan oleh ACAM, iaitu pulangan bulanan sebanyak RM37,500.00 sebulan untuk tempoh 24 bulan dan pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut pada bulan yang ke-25. 21. Ini dapat dilihat dalam klausa-klausa seperti di bawah – (a) Deklarasi Amanah 1 antara Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua “DECLARATION OF TRUST 1 This Declaration of Trust 1 is dated 28 AUG 2018 and shall forms part of and is issued under the Master Deed of Trust, BETWEEN Name A Rahim Bin Tamby Chik NRIC/Passport No. 500410-04-5019 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Address Suite 30-1, Wisma UOA II, Level 30, Jalan Pinang 50450 Kuala Lumpur Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia (hereinafter called “Settlor”) AND MY PREMIER TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD (Company No.: 719395-T) a public limited company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 and registered as a Trust Company under the Trust Companies Act 1949 and having its registered office and place of business at 21-9, Office Suites, Menara 1MK, Kompleks 1 Mont’ Kiara, No. 1, Jalan Kiara, Mont’ Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as “Trustee”). … 4. ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST 4.1 The Settlor had appointed Asia Cornerstone Asset Management Company Limited (CE Reference Number BEJ381), a licensed asset management company with the Securities and Futures Commission, the financial regulatory authority of Hong Kong, with principal address at Unit 1730 17/F **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Silvercord Tower 2, 30 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as the “Advisor”) to manage and administer the Trust Fund in such transactions involving the listing of a company in any recognized exchange worldwide, including but not limited to purchase of equities of any entities, incorporated or otherwise, shares of any corporation and real property (hereinafter referred to as the “Authorised Investment”), of which as long as the appointment of Advisor by the Settlor to manage and administer the Trust Fund is enforceable, the Settlor hereby mandates the Trustee to disburse the Trust Fund in accordance to the instruction of the Advisor.”. (b) Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk antara ACAM dengan Plaintif “THIS MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT is made on ……. (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN Asia Cornerstone Asset Management Company Limited (CE Reference Number BEJ381), a licensed asset management company with the Securities and Futures Commission, the financial regulatory authority of Hong Kong with the principal address at Unit 1730 17/F Silvercord **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Tower 2, 30 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong (“Advisor”) of the one part; AND the party whose name(s) and particulars are as stated in Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 of the First Schedule [*ie. which includes the Plaintiff] hereto (“Investor”) of the other part. WHEREAS: A. The Advisor is a licensed asset management company with the Securities and Futures Commission, the financial regulatory authority of Hong Kong with the principal address at Unit 1730 17/F Silvercord Tower 2, 30 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong. B. The Advisor has the experience and expertise in managing investments involving the listing of companies in any recognized exchange worldwide, including but not limited to purchase of any entities, incorporated or otherwise, shares of any corporation and real property. C. The Investor has established a private trust(s) with MY PREMIER TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (Company No.: 719395-T) a public limited company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 and registered as a Trust Company under the Trust Companies Act 1949 for the benefit of the Investor’s Beneficiary and as long as the private trust(s) is in existence, the Investor wish for the funds in the trust (“Trust Fund”) to be invested in such transactions involving the listing of a company in any recognised exchange worldwide, including but not limited to purchase of equities of any entities, incorporated or otherwise, shares of any corporation and real property (“Authorised Investment”), subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. D. The Investor is desirous to appoint and the Advisor is agreeable to act as the investment manager of the Trust Fund (“Services”) on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. … 2. AGREEMENT 2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the general terms and conditions applicable to all services provided by the Advisor to the Investors under each Service Schedule. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 … 3. APPOINTMENT 3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions herein contained, the Investor agrees to appoint the Advisor to act as the investment manager of the Trust Fund. … 4. TERM 4.1 Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the Advisor agrees to act as the investment manager during the Term that is more particularly described in the Service Schedule. … 5. BENEFITS 5.1 Each Investor, subject to the provisions of this Agreement, is entitled to the Returns with such Returns to be paid to the Investor as agreed in the respective Service Schedule. … **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 6. ADVISOR’S RIGHTS 6.1 The Advisor has an irrevocable right to manage the Trust Fund during the Term and therefore is not liable to be removed by the Investor as long as the Service Schedule is enforceable unless as provided in the Service Schedule. 7. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADVISOR 7.1 The Advisor hereby covenants as follows: - (a) to manage, upkeep and maintain the business and affairs in accordance to the laws and regulations under the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission and all other applicable laws; (b) the Advisor will use its best endeavours to carry on and conduct its duties and responsibilities in a proper and efficient manner; (c) the Advisor shall ensure that the use of the Trust Fund does not breach of any of the terms and conditions contained herein; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 (d) the Advisor shall adhere to all privacy laws (including the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA 2010”)) in force and any other relevant laws that may come into force during the term of this Agreement.”. (c)

Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan oleh ACAM kepada Plaintif **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 22. Berdasarkan klausa-klausa di atas serta segala pliding dan keterangan dalam Mahkamah ini, adalah menjadi dapatan Mahkamah ini bahawa – (a) ACAM sebagai syarikat pelaburan yang beribu pejabat di Hong Kong telah mewujudkan Dana Amanah tersebut; (b) Plaintif telah melabur sebanyak RM3,000,000.00 dalam Dana Amanah tersebut; (c) Plaintif sebagai Settlor telah melantik ACAM sebagai Advisor untuk mengurus dan mentadbir Dana Amanah tersebut dan Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut. Oleh itu, Defendan Kedua sebagai Trustee tidak bertanggungjawab untuk mengurus dan mentadbir Dana Amanah tersebut (rujuk klausa 7.3 Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk tersebut); (d) Defendan Pertama adalah ejen ACAM di Malaysia dan bertanggungjawab, inter alia, untuk membuat pemasaran, komunikasi dan pembayaran pulangan kepada pelabur-pelabur yang melabur dalam Dana Amanah tersebut, termasuk Plaintif; (e) Plaintif telah melantik Defendan Kedua sebagai pemegang amanah bagi Dana Amanah tersebut; (f) Defendan Kedua bukan pihak kepada Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk antara ACAM dengan Plaintif; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 (g) Defendan Kedua tidak terlibat dalam pengurusan dan pentadbiran Dana Amanah tersebut serta Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut dan pembayaran pulangan kepada Plaintif; (h) Defendan Kedua telah mendepositkan kesemua Modal Pelaburan Plaintif berjumlah sebanyak RM3,000,000.00 tersebut ke dalam Akaun Stakeholder ACAM yang diuruskan (operate) oleh ACAM dan ACAM telah mengesahkan penerimaan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut dan mengeluarkan resit penerimaan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut (rujuk keterangan DW2, muka surat 111 hingga 119 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama dan muka surat 1, 4 dan 12 Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Kedua); (i) ACAM dan/atau Defendan Pertama akan membayar pulangan ke atas Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut mengikut

Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan yang telah disediakan oleh ACAM tersebut; dan (j) Plaintif bersetuju dengan Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan tersebut dan telahpun menerima semua pembayaran pulangan seperti mana dalam Jadual Pembayaran Pulangan tersebut (rujuk Pernyataan-Pernyataan Bank Plaintif dalam Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif) kecuali pembayaran pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 dan pembayaran pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut yang sepatutnya dibayar pada bulan yang ke-25. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 23. Berdasarkan dapatan di atas dan prinsip undang-undang yang mantap, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa memandangkan Defendan Kedua hanya merupakan pemegang amanah kepada Dana Amanah tersebut dan tidak terlibat dan bertanggungjawab ke atas – (a) pengurusan dan pentadbiran Dana Amanah tersebut; (b) Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut; (c) pembayaran pulangan ke atas Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut; dan (d) keuntungan dan kerugian Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut, maka Defendan Kedua tidak mempunyai apa-apa kewajipan dan tanggungjawab di sisi undang-undang untuk membayar pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 tersebut dan pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut kepada Plaintif dan/atau menanggung apa-apa kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif akibat daripada Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut. 24. Dalam perkara ini, memandangkan Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk tersebut telah dimasuki antara ACAM dengan Plaintif sahaja tanpa melibatkan Defendan Kedua, maka Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa apa-apa kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif atas kegagalan ACAM membuat pembayaran pulangan bagi bulan yang ke-19 dan pulangan Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut kepada Plaintif hendaklah dituntut daripada ACAM dan/atau Defendan Pertama kerana – **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 (a) ACAM adalah pihak yang bertanggungjawab untuk mengurus dan mentadbir Dana Amanah tersebut dan Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut; (b) Defendan Pertama adalah ejen ACAM yang bertanggungjawab, inter alia, untuk membuat pembayaran pulangan kepada pelabur-pelabur Dana Amanah tersebut, termasuk Plaintif; dan (c) selama 23 bulan sebelum itu, ACAM dan/atau Defendan Pertama yang telah membayar pulangan tersebut kepada Plaintif dan bukannya Defendan Kedua. 25. Walau bagaimanapun, Plaintif telah gagal menamakan ACAM sebagai defendan dalam tindakan ini dan juga telah menarik balik tuntutannya terhadap Defendan Pertama dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula. 26. Oleh itu, berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa Plaintif tidak mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap Defendan Kedua dan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua adalah bersifat frivolous. 27. Kedua, berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, memandangkan Plaintif tidak mempunyai kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap Defendan Kedua, maka permohonan Plaintif untuk injunksi mareva terhadap Defendan Kedua adalah bersifat mala fide dan tidak harus dibenarkan. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 28. Oleh itu, Defendan Kedua berhak untuk menuntut apa-apa ganti rugi yang berbangkit daripada perintah injunksi mareva yang diperoleh oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua sebelum ini. 29. Ketiga, berdasarkan klausa 7.3 Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Induk tersebut adalah jelas bahawa Defendan Kedua tidak akan dipertanggungjawabkan dan dipersalahkan (not liable) oleh Plaintif selepas semua wang pelabur-pelabur, termasuk Plaintif, diserahkan kepada ACAM, iaitu seperti yang berikut: “7. DISTRIBUTION OF TRUST FUND 7.3 In the event that the an Advisor is appointed by the Settlor as provided in the Declaration of Trust, Trustee shall not be responsible for the Trust Fund from the date the Trust Fund is disbursed to the Advisor and as such Trustee shall not be responsible to the distribution of any earnings from the holding of the Trust Fund and/or any proceed receives from the Trust Funds as well as the management and administration of the Trust Fund thereafter.”. 30. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua dalam tindakan ini adalah bercanggah dengan persetujuan dan perjanjian yang telah dimasuki antara kedua-dua pihak tersebut sebelum ini. 31. Keempat, mengenai isu bahawa Defendan Kedua tidak mengemukakan buku-buku amanah berkaitan dengan Dana Amanah tersebut kepada Plaintif seperti mana yang dipohon oleh Plaintif, **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa perkara ini tidak menjejaskan kes Defendan Kedua dan tidak memprejudiskan Plaintif. Ini kerana – (a) DW2 telah menjelaskan dalam keterangannya bahawa Defendan Kedua tidak menyimpan rekod Dana Amanah tersebut dalam bentuk buku amanah; (b) terdapat keterangan bahawa Defendan Kedua telahpun mendepositkan kesemua Modal Pelaburan Plaintif tersebut ke dalam Dana Amanah tersebut seperti mana arahan Plaintif dan perkara ini tidak dinafikan oleh Plaintif dan telah disahkan oleh ACAM. Malah, Plaintif sendiri mengakui telah menerima pembayaran pulangan tersebut untuk tempoh 23 bulan sebelum ini; dan (c) jika Plaintif hendak menyemak butiran berkaitan dengan pembayaran pulangan Pelaburan Plaintif untuk tempoh 23 bulan berkaitan dengan Dana Amanah tersebut, Plaintif boleh sahaja merujuk kepada Pernyataan-Pernyataan Bank Plaintif seperti yang terdapat dalam Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif dan tidak perlu bergantung kepada buku-buku amanah tersebut. 32. Memandangkan buku-buku amanah tersebut tidak wujud, pada pendapat Mahkamah ini adalah tidak wajar untuk Mahkamah ini membangkitkan anggapan inferens bertentangan di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan terhadap Defendan Kedua. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 KESIMPULAN 33. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini telah menolak tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua dan telah membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan Kedua terhadap Plaintif seperti di perenggan 4 di atas. Bertarikh : 8 MEI 2026 (DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 (KUALA LUMPUR) Peguam bagi pihak Plaintif: Dato’ Firoz Hussein bin Ahmad Jamaluddin (bersama Encik Choo Shi Jin dan Encik Harel Nieryan bin Awang Bakar) Tetuan Firoz Julian Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara Suite 18-01, Level 18 Menara Milenium 8, Jalan Damanlela Pusat Bandar Damansara 50490 KUALA LUMPUR Tel: 03-9772 2450 Faks: 03-9772 2451 Ruj: 20220004/RTC/DFH/CSJ E-mel: shi.jin.choo@fjlaw.com.my Peguam bagi pihak Defendan Kedua: Encik Raam Kumar Tetuan K.B. Tan, Kumar & Partners Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara 11C, Jalan Wan Mohd Salleh Greentown 30450 Ipoh **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN Tel: 05-241 5877 / 05-241 6361 Faks: 05-253 4677 Ruj: TK/ RK/m/8965/21-D E-mel: firm@tankumar.com.my Peguam bagi pihak Pencelah: – Tetuan Damien Chan, Hannibal & Ng Chambers Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara K-6-12, Solaris Mont’ Kiara Jalan Solaris 50480 KUALA LUMPUR Tel: 03-6413 6808 Faks: 03-6413 6806 Ruj: dhl/jf/lit/bwm/20210003 E-mel: office@dhnchambers.com **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal