Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COMPANY LAW – FRAUD BY DIRECTORS

I have contracted with a company for service rendered and I will be paid RM1 million. Service was rendered. However, when the company refused to pay, I sued the company. The directors agreed that they will make payment to me when they have received monies from a sale of their land to MH Group. I have withdrawn the case against the company on the directors assurance. These turns out to be a lie. The directors later dissipated the money away to 3rd party.

Can I sue the directors personally for fraud.

  • Yes. You can sue the directors for knowingly and intentionally carried out the business of the company by dissipating the monies under the sale and purchase with MH Group. The monies were assured to be paid to you.
  • The directors of the company had knowing and fraudulent misrepresented to you that you will receive payment upon their sale to MH Group; thus rendering you agreeing to withdraw the case against the company earlier.
  • Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 provides as follows:

“(1) If in the course of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud the creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the Court on the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company, may, if the Court thinks proper so to do, declare that any person who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the Court directs.”

Can the director of the company claim that they are not in any way personally liable to the company’s debt to you?

  • No. Fraud can be used to pierce the corporate veil to make directors personally liable for their fraudulent act.
  • The directors of the company would have committed the fraud of knowingly carrying out dissipation of the monies and to be a knowing party to the fraud.

What is the burden of proof for fraud?

  • Fraud in civil cases has to be proven on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding.

Case in point : Tetuan Sulaiman & Taye v Wong Poh Kun & Anor and another appeal [2023] 3 MLJ 361

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们