A
ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd
Organisation 8 cases
About ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd
ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 8 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to October 2025. ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd appeared as defendant in 4 cases, appellant in 2 cases, respondent in 2 cases. Cases span the Court of Appeal (4), High Court (4).
How many court cases involve ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd?
ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd appears in 8 published judgments from February 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as defendant (4 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd appeared?
ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd has appeared across Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (4 cases) and High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (4 cases), totaling 8 judgments.
Practice Areas
The Court of Appeal held that the loan agreement between Ace Credit (M) Sdn Bhd and Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd was void under section 10P of the Moneylenders Act 1951 for non-compliance with the prescribed form and excessive interest. All related security documents and caveats were likewise invalid. However, applying section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, the Court ordered restitution of monies advanced, as the transaction was void but not substantively illegal. The High Court’s decision was affirmed with slight variation and no order as to costs. 4 Contract 4 Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit- 1 Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-22- Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum is to be repaid upon early cancellation- I hold the Investment Agreement is not a moneylending transaction-The Investment Agreement states clearly that it’s an Investment Agreement whereby the investor is entitled to a fixed return per year for 5 years and repayment of his Investment Sum at the end of the 5-year period or to be repaid upon early cancellation-“34 Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions.”-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-10 OA. Where in any proceedings against any person, it is alleged that such person is a moneylender, the proof of a single loan at interest made by such person shall raise a presumption that such person is carrying on the business of moneylending, until the contrary is proved. 1
Respondent (2)
Appellant (2)
p-02imncvc-336-03-2023 MYCOA
ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) KBH MARINE INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 2. ) Sin Soon Hock Sdn Bhd 3. ) Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn. Bhd. 4. ) Chin Swee Chong 5. ) Tan Poo Chuan 6. ) Yeo Boon Leong 7. ) Tan Seok Gaik 8. ) Lim Soo Aun 9. ) Koay Yeat Yee
12 October 2025
p-02imncvc-337-03-2023 MYCOA
ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN BHD 2. ) KBH MARINE INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 3. ) Chin Swee Chong 4. ) Sin Soon Hock Sdn Bhd 5. ) TAN POO CHUAN 6. ) YEO BOON LEONG 7. ) TAN SEOK GAIK 8. ) LIM SOO AUN 9. ) KOAY YEAT YEE
12 October 2025
Defendant (4)
wa-22ncc-698-09-2023 MYHC
JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
7 October 2025
wa-22ncc-696-09-2023 MYHC
KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
15 July 2025
wa-22ncc-547-08-2023 MYHC
MOHD FARID BIN MOHAMED SANGIDO v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG
17 February 2025
wa-22ncc-587-08-2023 MYHC
DATIN SRI AIDARAHMI BINTI ISMAIL v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
17 February 2025