1. ) NORAINI BINTI YATIM 2. ) MOHD FARIHAN BIN AZIZAN 3. ) EILEEN WONG MEI FOONG 4. ) NUR AIRA BINTI ABD RAHIM v 1. ) INTER CITY SERVICES & TRAVEL SDN BHD 2. ) NORANI BINTI ISMAIL 3. ) ZAKARIA HJ HASSAN BASAREE 4. ) NORMAN BIN ZAKARIA
Catchwords
Abstract and Keywords Abstract This case involved eleven investment agreements of RM2.2 million between family members and the company, where plaintiffs claimed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding non-existent projects. The defendants argued the agreements were disguised moneylending transactions contravening the Moneylenders Act 1951. In applying the principles in Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd, it was found that the agreements constituted illegal moneylending due to their characteristics of fixed 30% returns regardless of business performance, systematic lending patterns and identical structures across multiple transactions. The S 100A presumption that the plaintiffs were engaged in unlicensed moneylending remains unrebutted, rendering the agreements void ab initio and unenforceable under S 15. ________________________________________ Keywords Moneylenders Act 1951; illegal moneylending; disguised loan agreements; investment agreements; statutory presumption; Section 100A MLA 1951; void ab initio; Triple Zest Trading; fraudulent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; sham agreements; unlicensed moneylenders; fixed returns; systematic lending; rebuttable presumption
Practice Areas
Abstract and Keywords Abstract This case involved eleven investment agreements of RM2.2 million between family members and the company, where plaintiffs claimed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding non-existent projects. The defendants argued the agreements were disguised moneylending transactions contravening the Moneylenders Act 1951. In applying the principles in Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd, it was found that the agreements constituted illegal moneylending due to their characteristics of fixed 30% returns regardless of business performance, systematic lending patterns and identical structures across multiple transactions. The S 100A presumption that the plaintiffs were engaged in unlicensed moneylending remains unrebutted, rendering the agreements void ab initio and unenforceable under S 15. ________________________________________ Keywords Moneylenders Act 1951; illegal moneylending; disguised loan agreements; investment agreements; statutory presumption; Section 100A MLA 1951; void ab initio; Triple Zest Trading; fraudulent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; sham agreements; unlicensed moneylenders; fixed returns; systematic lending; rebuttable presumption
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) NORAINI BINTI YATIM 2. ) MOHD FARIHAN BIN AZIZAN 3. ) EILEEN WONG MEI FO... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 20, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-448-08-2020). The case was decided by Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi.
Key issues: Abstract and Keywords.
What was the outcome of 1. ) NORAINI BINTI YATIM 2. ) MOHD FARIHAN BIN AZIZAN 3. ) EILEEN WONG MEI FO...?
1. ) NORAINI BINTI YATIM 2. ) MOHD FARIHAN BIN AZIZAN 3. ) EILEEN WONG MEI FO... is a High Court decision dated March 20, 2025. The case was heard by Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi. See the full judgment for details.