{"id":5713,"date":"2024-12-16T09:09:43","date_gmt":"2024-12-16T01:09:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/?p=5713"},"modified":"2024-12-16T09:09:46","modified_gmt":"2024-12-16T01:09:46","slug":"ilelgal-moneylenders-when-loans-cross-the-line-key-lessons-from-shim-vui-geh-v-dayang-masturah-on-illegal-moneylending-and-property-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/zh\/ilelgal-moneylenders-when-loans-cross-the-line-key-lessons-from-shim-vui-geh-v-dayang-masturah-on-illegal-moneylending-and-property-security\/","title":{"rendered":"ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Summary and Facts<\/strong>
In Shim Vui Geh v Dayang Masturah bt Sahari and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 755<\/em>, the dispute arose from a loan agreement where the plaintiffs provided properties as security and later transferred these properties to the defendant following a loan default. The High Court initially ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the loans void under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (\u201cthe MA\u201d) due to the unreasonable interest rate. The defendant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal (COA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal Issues<\/strong>
i. Whether the plaintiffs could claim they did not understand the nature of the agreements they signed?
ii. Whether the transactions constituted friendly loans or illegal moneylending?
iii. Whether the lender was entitled to take outright ownership of properties as security following the borrowers\u2019 default?
iv. Whether the transfer and registration of the properties in the lender\u2019s name were legally enforceable or should be set aside?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n