Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA

In brief

  • There is a saying that the love of money is the root to all evil. As a result, the vice of corruption or bribery, as an aspect of the “original sin” of the love of money, might be considered to be a root as part of a larger root of all evil. 

What is corruption?

  •  Corruption, properly defined in broad terms and inclusively, goes from the simple offering of a bribe to the misappropriation and misuse of public funds under the disguise of authority through the procurement process. When seen in connection to the whole political and administrative framework that allows it to exist, it is a disease that finally drains and corrupts society as a whole. This can be illustrated from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal which was a huge corruption, bribery, and money laundering affair that originated in Malaysia in 2009 but quickly spread throughout the world and was disclosed in 2015. In 2016, the US Department of Justice dubbed it the “biggest kleptocracy case to date,” describing it as “one of the world’s greatest financial scandals.” 
  •  Malaysia has continuously placed “high” in Transparency International’s corruption index or scale (TI). The country is ranked 62nd out of 180 nations in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index for 2021. These statistics prove that corruption has still been ongoing in Malaysia. 

How did Malaysia combat corruption? 

  • .The Integrity Institute of Malaysia (IIM) and an independent Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) were established under Abdullah’s government in 2004 and 2009, respectively. In addition, some may not know that in 2011, a scheme was created by MACC which offered cash rewards to the amount of the bribe, kickback, or graft involved. The Whistleblower Protection Act (2010) and the Witness Protection Act protect whistleblowers (2009).

Q. Let’s just say you were a civil servant and you failed to report the giving of as well as request for bribes. Can you get in trouble in these circumstances?

A. Yes, under section 25 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act, you can be penalized for failing to disclose incidents of bribery to the MACC (2009). 

  •  Moreover, not to mention, following a two-year moratorium for adjustments and familiarization, Section 17A (Amendment, 2018) of the MACC Act (2009), which imposes severe responsibility for corporate compliance, went into force on June 1, 2020. This means that if their workers or associates are involved in corrupt activities and transactions, “commercial organizations are likewise accountable and can be penalized.” If the commercial organization’s highest management or representatives are aware of the corruption perpetrated by their workers or allies, they may be judged guilty.” 
  •  A commercial organization commits a criminal offence under Section 17A if a person linked with it delivers any gratification with the aim to gain or keep any business or benefit for the commercial organization. The crime has a stiff penalty of a fine of not less than ten times the bride’s value or RM 1 million, whichever is larger, and/or a maximum sentence of 20 years in jail. 

Examples: Based on Malaysia most biggest scandal in history, this has been shown in Dato’ Sri Najib Razak case where he was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined RM210 million by the High Court on July 28, 2020, after Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali found him guilty of seven charges involving SRC, including one charge of abuse of power involving Retirement Fund (Inc)’s (KWAP). RM4 billion loans to SRC, three counts of criminal breach of trust involving RM42 million, and three counts of money laundering. However, he has made an appeal to the Federal Court after decisions were made from the Court of Appeal. 

Conclusion

  •  Corruption has come to the top of governments’ and business leaders’ priorities. Despite the fact that corruption has always been a problem, there is a growing understanding of its harmful effects on social and economic progress. Malaysia has a long history of enacting anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation, with instances occurring over the previous four decades with no signs of stopping down. Corruption and bribery are deeply rooted in Malaysia’s political and government institutions, as evidenced by cases such as the Sabah Water Department, 1MDB, Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), and Immigration Department Scandal in 2018. However, the implementation of newly formulated measures such as the introduction of corporate responsibility for corruption offences, which will take effect in June, might be a watershed moment in Malaysia’s fight against corruption and bribery.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami