Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND DIGITAL SIGNATURE IN MALAYSIA

What is an e-signature?

Under the Electronic Commerce Act 2006 (“ECA”), an e-signature is a signature adopted by a person in the form of any letter, character, symbol, number, sound or any of the combination which is created in an electronic form. An e-signature can replace a handwritten signature in virtually any process.

Different forms of e-signature: –

  • Bitmap Signature – Scanned images of handwritten signatures onto a document.
  • Digital Signature – A process that guarantee the authenticity of the electronic document via asymmetric cryptosystem (an algorithm or series of algorithms which provide a secure key pair).
  • Biometric Signature – Certified and verified signature via fingerprint, retina, iris or voice.

 

How is digital signature valid?

Yes. It is valid but the following conditions must be fulfilled:

  • The digital signature must be verified by reference to the public key listed in a valid certificate issued by a licensed certification authority;
  • The digital signature was affixed by the signer with the intention of signing the message; and
  • The recipient has no knowledge or notice that the signer has breached a duty as a subscriber and does not rightfully hold the private key used to affix the digital signature.

 

What is the implication of signing under the digital signature?

A message shall be as valid, enforceable and effective as if it had been written on paper if: –

  • It bears in its entirety a digital signature; and
  • That digital signature is verified by the public key listed in a certificate which was issued by a licensed certification authority and was valid at the time the digital signature was created.

 

What documents can be executed via e-signature?

Corporate documents and contract.

 

What documents cannot be executed electronically?

  • Powers of attorney
  • Wills and codicils
  • Trusts
  • Negotiable instruments

 

Which certification authorities in Malaysia has the license from MCMC to issue digital certificates under the DSA?

  • Pos Digicert Sdn Bhd (457608-K);
  • MSC Trustgate.Com Sdn Bhd (478231-X);
  • Telekom Applied Business Sdn Bhd (455343-U); and
  • Raffcomm Technologies Sdn Bhd (1000449-W).
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us