Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO – Appellant
Versus
KOH CHIN WEI & ANOR – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The Court found that the Trust Deed created for the purpose of tax evasion was a sham and unenforceable, and therefore, it could not be relied upon to support the Plaintiff's claim (!) (!) .
The property in the Lamborghini passed to the Plaintiff when the vehicle was in a deliverable state and delivery was taken, regardless of whether payment was made. This is supported by the applicable sale of goods law principles (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff failed to prove that he paid for the Lamborghini, as he did not adduce evidence of payment and provided incoherent explanations under cross-examination (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff admitted that the Trust Deed was created primarily to evade income tax, which renders the instrument unlawful and unenforceable (!) (!) .
The court upheld the Defendant's counterclaim, ordering the Plaintiff to pay RM1,050,000.00 for the Lamborghini, with interest, since the property had already passed to him (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff's claim for damages related to towing and damages to the vehicle was dismissed due to lack of proof (!) .
Cryptocurrency was recognized as valid consideration, but transactions involving it must be verifiable due to the inherent anonymity and difficulty in verification (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that agreements created for the purpose of evading laws or taxes are against public policy and are void (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court rejected the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the source of cryptocurrency and the existence of a business enterprise involving a Chinese client, due to lack of evidence and credibility issues (!) (!) .
Overall, the court granted the Plaintiff specific performance to retain the Lamborghini upon payment of the purchase price, and dismissed other claims and prayers that lacked evidentiary support or were contrary to law (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed breakdown or assistance with specific legal issues.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] A Lamborghini Huracan is an Italian sports car. It transpired during the trial of this action that cryptocurrency was purportedly used to pay the 2nd Defendant for the purchase of a Lamborghini Huracan as well as for a Bentley Continental and a Ferrari 488 GTB. The Plaintiff's testimony was that he and his partners decided to buy a 'super car' each after receiving a windfall of RM25million in "consultancy fees" paid to them in the form of cryptocurrency. Only the Lamborghini, bearing registration number TG18 ("the said Lamborghini") was the subject matter of this action.
[2] Had the Plaintiff been able to adduce evidence of having paid for the said Lamborghini, I would have had no hesitation to allow the Plaintiff's claim and to dismiss the Defendants' respective counterclaim - which was premised on the existence of a tripartite oral agreement for payment for the said Lamborghini to be made subsequently by the Plaintiff. However, during the trial, the Plaintiff adduced no evidence of payment for the said Lamborghini, and instead he gave an unsubstantiated and incoherent explanation.
[3] After careful evaluation of the evidence and submissions o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
