Malaysia: Sentencing White‐Collar Offenders
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025746 |
| Date | 01 February 1996 |
| Pages | 403-405 |
| Published date | 01 February 1996 |
| Author | Mimi Kamariah Majid |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Malaysia: Sentencing White-Collar Offenders
Mimi Kamariah Majid
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 3 No. 4 — International
The Royal Malaysia Police refer to white collar
crime as commercial crime and the Commercial
Crime Division of its Criminal Investigation
Department (CID) deals with offences such as
criminal breach of trust, fraud, forgery, counter-
feiting, offences under the Banking and Financial
Institutions Act 1989, Commodities Trading Act
1985,
Cooperative Societies Act 1966, and the
Companies Act 1965.
In 1985 a total of
5,201
cases were reported over
4,946 cases reported in 1984. Because of these
worrying trends the CID have increased their per-
sonnel and manpower to manage the problem. In
1986,
the department investigated 3,623 commer-
cial crime casees involving a loss of approximately
77.6m ringgit; 4,812 in 1987 involving an appro-
priate loss of 153.9m ringgit; 4,288 cases in 1988
involving an approximate loss of 214.2m ringgit;
4,362 cases in 1989 involving an approximate loss
of 130.9m ringgit; 4,388 cases in 1990 involving an
approximate loss of 127.1m ringgit; and 4,327 cases
in 1991 involving an approximate loss of 108.7m
ringgit.1 In 1993, there were 4,929 commercial
crime cases and in 1994,
5,229
such cases reported
to the police, an increase of 6 per cent. The total
losses for 1993 were 145m ringgit and for 1994,
155m ringgit.2
Of all the commercial crimes, fraud appeared
most frequently in police records. In 1993 and
1994 there were 2,204 and 2,067 cases, respect-
ively. Criminal breach of trust came second with
1,224 cases in 1993 and 1,262 cases in 1994.3
The courts have not been very consistent in the
punishments that have been meted out. In the
earlier cases of Datuk Harun Hj. Idris and Others4
and Khairuddin5 the courts have regarded the
accused persons' status in society or in the institu-
tion which employed them as aggravating factors
when determining appropriate sentences for them.
In the earlier Federal Court the sentence of the
first offender (who was found guilty of forgery and
abetment of criminal breach of trust) was
enhanced to four years' imprisonment on the first
charge and three years on the second charge. The
second offender who was convicted of forgery and
criminal breach of trust had his sentences
enhanced to three years' imprisonment. In Khair-
uddin, the sentence of
a
fine of RM2,000 in default
of two months' imprisonment was enhanced to 18
months' imprisonment and a fine of RM2,000.
The principles in
Pugh and
Rendell6 were followed.
Khairuddin and Pugh and Rendeli were followed
subsequently in Muthu Litigam7 and the one day's
imprisonment was enhanced to three years, and
the RM3,000 fine remained. Mohamed Abdullah
Ang8 was a case where the trial court had imposed
eight years' imprisonment and a fine of
RM100,000 in default of six months' imprison-
ment, although in the earlier case of Muthu
Lingam, the same judge had presided. This appar-
ent inconsistency was commented on by the
Supreme Court to which the accused had
appealed. The principles in the English case of
Barrick9 were referred to and accepted and Khair-
uddin and Muthu Lingam were thought to be useful
guides on determining the length of prison sen-
tence for CBT cases such as the present. The
Supreme Court reduced the eight years' imprison-
ment to four years and set aside the fine.
The high incidence of white-collar crimes led
the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of
National Unity and Community Development to
organise a seminar in March 1992 to study, inter
alia, the possibility of introducing whipping as a
punishment for such offences. It was only in Sep-
tember 1993 that the Penal Code (Amendment)
Act10 was passed amending certain provisions
relevant to white collar offences by making certain
terms and certain offences much clearer, and
introducing the punishments of fine and whipping.
Section 403 which provides for the offence of
dishonest misappropriation of property is made
punishable by mandatory imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months and not
more than five years, and mandatory whipping.
The offender is only 'liable' to a fine, implying a
discretionary power of the court. Section 404 pro-
vides for two variants of the offence of dishonest
misappropriation of property. For the first variant,
the mandatory imprisonment is for a term which
shall not be less than six months and not more
than five years, and whipping is mandatory. A fine
Page 403
To continue reading
Request your trial