Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

MEMORANDUM OF TRANSFER – EXEMPTION – STAMP DUTY – RPGT – PERFECTION OF TRANSFER – REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

Memorandum of Transfer (“MOT”)

  • MOT is a legal document prescribed by the National Land Code 1965, which is used to effect the transfer of the ownership of the property, once the individual title / strata title is issued, from the developer to the purchaser.
  • For an MOT to be legally effective, the document must be stamped and adjudicated at the Inland Revenue Board and the stamp duty paid.

Exemption on Stamp Duty

  • The government under its recent short-term economic recovery plan (“PENJANA”) has reintroduced the Home Ownership Campaign 2020 (“HOC 2020”) which offered significant reductions to the stamp duty payable for qualified home buyers.
  • Under HOC 2020, Malaysian home buyers who sign and stamp their Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) from 1st June 2020 to 31st December 2021 may receive full stamp duty exemption on their MOTs and loan agreements depending on property value.
  • Take note: this is only applicable to residential properties that fall within the range from RM300k to RM2.5 mil.
  • Take note: stamp duty of MOT will only be exempted for the first RM1 mil of the property.
  • For the remaining, RM3 will be imposed for every RM100.
  • If you buy property within RM1 mil, you will be exempted from stamp duty for both MOT and loan agreements.

Exemption on RPGT

  • When you are selling a property, you are required to pay Real Property Gain Tax (“RPGT”) based on the gains from the disposal of the property:-
Disposal Malaysians Foreigners Companies
1st year 30% 30% 30%
2nd year 30% 30% 30%
3rd year 30% 30% 30%
4th year 20% 30% 20%
5th year 15% 30% 15%
6th year and thereafter 5% 10% 10%
  • In PENJANA plan, RPGT has been exempted for the disposal of properties. However, it must fall under the following requirements:-
  • This exemption is only applicable to residential property.
  • The transaction shall be carried out from 1st June 2020 to 31st December 2021.
  • This exemption is only limited to the disposal of three units of residential homes per individual.

Stamp Duty Exemptions for Transfers between Loved Ones

  • Transfers of ownership between family members and loved ones would come under “love and affection”
  • Love and affection transaction is subject to certain exemptions on the stamp duty.
  • This is only applicable to transfers between husband and wife, and parent and child.
  • Transfers between spouses will be exempted from stamp duty, while between parent and child, there is a 50% exemption.

 Perfection of Transfer (“POT”)

  • POT is the process of the changing of the name on the title from the developer’s name to the current owner’s name.
  • Most of the time, the property title is still under a Master Title when a person buys an under-construction house from the developer.
  • Generally, Master Title refers to the whole piece of land, which including building lots or parcel lots that haven’t divided into individual building lot or parcel lot. In other words, all properties will be put together in one big plan.
  • Therefore, it is the developer’s responsibility to subdivide the big plan into an individual share of the property and submit it to the Land Office for their approval.
  • Upon approval by the Land Office, each unit of property will now has its Individual or Strata Title and the previous Master Title will be revoked to the Land Office.
  • When an Individual Title or Strata Title has been issued at a later date, a POT process is required to complete ownership procedure from developer to the purchaser.

Perfection of Charge (“POC”)

  • If the purchaser obtains a loan to purchase the property, the purchaser shall charge the property to the bank by way of POC.
  • Charge is a common form of security registered in favour of the financial institution in exchange for the granting of a loan facility to the purchaser in financing the purchase of property.

Why do you have to appoint a conveyancing lawyer to do POT and POC?

  • To act on your behalf to communicate with developer’s solicitor as well as to transact with the various government agencies.
  • A property transaction has a complex legal procedure, a conveyancing lawyer would be able to guide, prepare and explain at every step to you
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY