Richard Ho
About Richard Ho
Richard Ho appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2024–2025). These were heard before MYCOA (2) and MYHC (1).
On the court record
Combines criminal defence in the section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act jurisdiction with civil litigation on creditor priority and executors' tax obligations under the Probate and Administration Act 1959 and the Income Tax Act 1967.
Richard Ho's appearances in this corpus move between serious drug defence and a probate-and-tax dispute. In the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) he acted as counsel for an appellant against a conviction under "seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952" (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952), punishable under section 39B(2). The issues were the core elements of a trafficking case, which the court set out in Malay: whether the accused had "jagaan dan kawalan terhadap dadah yang dirampas" (custody and control of the seized drugs); whether the accused had "pengetahuan terhadap dadah" (knowledge of the drugs); and whether the accused had trafficked in them. The defence also pressed the absence of CCTV evidence at the scene and the absence of the accused's fingerprints on the seized items — evidential gaps said to weaken the prosecution case.
In the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) he appeared as counsel for the respondent in a very different matter, at the intersection of succession and revenue law. The court held that a disposition of property in a will is void as against the testator's creditors if made without first paying the testator's debts and liabilities, creditors having priority by virtue of section 67(1)(a) of the Probate and Administration Act 1959. The point was reinforced by section 74 of the Income Tax Act 1967, under which the executors of a deceased person are assessable and chargeable for tax payable by the deceased, and executors are prohibited from distributing the estate's assets before those liabilities are met.
He also acted as counsel for the accused in a further Court of Appeal drug appeal concerning methamphetamine, engaging the presumptions of trafficking and possession and the burden on the balance of probabilities. Across these matters, Richard Ho's practice combines criminal defence in the drug jurisdiction with civil litigation on the priority of creditors and executors' tax obligations in the administration of estates.
How many cases has Richard Ho appeared in?
Richard Ho appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2024–2025).
Which courts does Richard Ho appear in?
Richard Ho appears before MYCOA (2) and MYHC (1).
What elements were in issue in the section 39B drug appeal?
Whether the accused had "jagaan dan kawalan" (custody and control) of the seized drugs, "pengetahuan" (knowledge) of them, and had trafficked in them — with the defence relying on the absence of CCTV footage and of the accused's fingerprints on the exhibits.
What did the court decide about a will and the testator's creditors?
That a disposition of property in a will is void against the testator's creditors if made without paying the testator's debts, creditors having priority under section 67(1)(a) of the Probate and Administration Act 1959, reinforced by section 74 of the Income Tax Act 1967 on executors' liability for the deceased's tax.