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

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