Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LAND LAW – FORGERY OF SIGNATURE OF THE VENDOR ON TRANSFER DOCUMENTS – SIGNATURE EXPERT

I have just discovered through a land search that my property was no longer registered in my name. What can I do?

  • You can file a claim to annul the registration of your property to the unknown third party under Section 340(2)(b) of the National Land Code.
  • Section 340(2) of the National Land Code reads as follows:

“(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible.

(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible—

  • in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or
  • where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or
  • where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.”

What are the steps you should take before filing your claim:

STEP 1:    Conduct a private land search with the Land Office for copies of all the transfer documents. Alternatively, you may file an application for discovery to obtain these documents

STEP 2:    Send the transfer documents for signature expert’s or Jabatan Kimia’s verification. Signature Expert will require approximately 10 signatures made during contemporaneous period for comparison. Original documents are preferred.

STEP 3 :    Signature expert will compare the signature using video spectra comparison comparator. VSC system is used to enlarge the image for comparison purpose. A comparison chart will be prepared. Every stroke, loop, diacritic and underscores will be marked to show handwriting characteristic. If original copy of the documents is given, the indentation or pressure point will be analysed. Signature expert will give his level of opinion based on the scale of 1 – 5. 1 being the highest level of similarity. 4 and 5 on the negative side i.e. not similar.

STEP 4 :    If the expert report has 4 or 5 level of opinion, you would have generally made up a case for fraud and forgery.

Is signature expert all that I need to prove fraud and forgery?

  • Yes. Generally, the victim of forgery would not have knowns or had any dealing with the perpetrator of fraud and forgery. It will be impossible for the victim to produce any other evidence to prove fraud and forgery. This is a rule based on common sense.

(Case in Point: Wong Ing Tong v Yap Piat Eng @ Yap Lien Eng & Anor and other appeals [2023] 2 MLJ 1)

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们