COMPANY LAW – FRAUD BY DIRECTORS

I have contracted with a company for service rendered and I will be paid RM1 million. Service was rendered. However, when the company refused to pay, I sued the company. The directors agreed that they will make payment to me when they have received monies from a sale of their land to MH Group. I have withdrawn the case against the company on the directors assurance. These turns out to be a lie. The directors later dissipated the money away to 3rd party.

Can I sue the directors personally for fraud.

  • Yes. You can sue the directors for knowingly and intentionally carried out the business of the company by dissipating the monies under the sale and purchase with MH Group. The monies were assured to be paid to you.
  • The directors of the company had knowing and fraudulent misrepresented to you that you will receive payment upon their sale to MH Group; thus rendering you agreeing to withdraw the case against the company earlier.
  • Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 provides as follows:

(1) If in the course of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud the creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the Court on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company, may, if the Court thinks proper so to do, declare that any person who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the Court directs.

Can the director of the company claim that they are not in any way personally liable to the company’s debt to you?

  • No. Fraud can be used to pierce the corporate veil to make directors personally liable for their fraudulent act.
  • The directors of the company would have committed the fraud of knowingly carrying out dissipation of the monies and to be a knowing party to the fraud.

What is the burden of proof for fraud?

  • Fraud in civil cases has to be proven on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding.

Case in point : Tetuan Sulaiman & Taye v Wong Poh Kun & Anor and another appeal [2023] 3 MLJ 361

Recent Post

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?