Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ILLEGAL MONEY LENDING – SPA AND MOT AS SECURITY FOR THE LOAN

I took a loan from Mr. X (who is not a licensed money lender). Mr. X asked me to execute a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) and Memorandum of Transfer (“MOT”) of my property to him as security for repayment of the loan. Later, I discovered that my property was transferred to Mr. Y. Can I recover back my property and have it re-registered in my name?
Yes.

  • The SPA and MOT which was executed to facilitate for the property to be used as security for a loan is illegal.
  • SPA and MOT cannot be used as façade to a money lending transaction.
  • SPA and MOT as security to a jual janji transaction is not recognized by the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC 1965”).
  • It is sham agreement to cloak the true intention of the parties which is illegal. Therefore, the entire transaction in the SPA and MOT is void.

But the property has been transferred to Mr. Y who is not the money lender. Does he have a good title?
Depends.

  • Section 340(2)(c) of the NLC 1965 provides that the title or interest of a registered proprietor is indefeasible when it is “unlawfully acquired”. As such, the title to Mr. X is defeated.
  • If the property is transferred from Mr. X to Mr. Y, Mr. Y has to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. If he can do that, his title cannot be set aside. This is provided in Section 340(3) of the NLC 1965.
  • Remember, the burden of proof that he is a “bona fide purchaser with valuable consideration” is on Mr. Y.

What is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration?

  • Bona fide implies good faith, upright mental attitude and clear conscience of a person. It requires Mr. Y to show that he has exercise ordinary prudence of a reasonable man when acquiring the property. Good faith contemplates “honest effort” to ascertain the property he acquires is not tainted with an illegality, fraud or fraudulent design.
  • If the court is not satisfied with Mr. Y’s honest effort, it cannot be said he is a “bona fide purchaser”.
  • “Valuable consideration” requires proof of payment of the purchase price of the property. Bank record of payment is crucial to establish valuable consideration. Cash payments would raise doubt especially on the elements of good faith.

Case in point: Pannir Selvam a/l Sinnaiyah & Anor v Tan Chia Foo & Ors [2021] 7 MLJ 384. High Court (Johor Bahru) – Civil Suit no: JA-22NCvC-273-12 of 2017

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us