A fraud victim can obtain Mareva freezing injunctions to prevent asset dissipation and trace funds where evidence suggests fraudulent transfer of money to multiple parties, including unknown recipients.

JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan JC:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff is a victim of a push payment fraud. Unknown fraudsters, being the first defendant, had deceived the plaintiff to pay the sum of EUR123,014.65 (equivalent to close to RM600,000) into a CIMB bank account under the control of the second defendant.

[2] This court had granted orders for a proprietary and Mareva freezing injunction against the first and second defendants. The facts and the orders are reported in Zschimmer & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG Chemische Fabriken v. Persons Unknown & Anor, .

[3] Orders for discovery against the banks were also subsequently granted. The documents from discovery revealed that the second defendant had immediately transferred out the plaintiff's monies. The money was shown to have been split three ways:

(i) The second defendant pocketed RM290,400;

(ii) The proposed third defendant pocketed RM250,000; and

(iii) The proposed fourth defendant pocketed RM50,000.

[4] The plaintiff now seeks the following applications in the following sequence:

(i) Enclosure 53 - application to amend the writ and statement of claim to include the proposed third defendant and the proposed fourth defendant.

(ii) Enclosure 56 - application for ex parte proprietary and Mareva freezing injunctions against the proposed third defendant and the proposed fourth defendant.

(iii) Enclosure 57 - an application for a self-identification order against the first defendant.

(iv) Enclosure 58 - an application for substituted service of the amended writ and statement of claim, and the other cause papers, on the second defendant.

Background Facts

[5] The plaintiff, being Zschimmer & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG Chemische Fabriken, is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of speciality chemical products. The plaintiff had been defrauded of EUR123,014.65 (equivalent to close to RM600,000) ('plaintiff's monies').

[6] The first defendant, being persons unknown, is a defendant and/or a group of defendants, who are essentially recipients of the monies misappropriated from the plaintiff or perpetrators of the fraud (as defined and particularised in the statement of claim) whose identities are currently unknown.

[7] The second defendant, being Mohammad Azuwan bin Othman ('Mohammad Azuwan'), is a Malaysian citizen and trading under the name and style of Premier Outlook Services ('Premier Outlook'). The second defendant had received the plaintiff's monies in Premier Outlook's account. As will be further detailed below, the second defendant had then caused the plaintiff's monies to be paid out to other bank accounts, including the second defendant's own personal bank account.

[8] The proposed third defendant, being Ahmad Abdul Salam bin Ramlan ('Ahmad Abdul Salam'), is a Malaysian citizen and is also the former owner of Premier Outlook before being replaced by the second defendant.

[9] The proposed fourth defendant, being Amirul Syahiran bin Azahari ('Amirul Syahiran'), is a Malaysian citizen and trading under the name and style of Buraq Logistics Enterprise ('Buraq Logistics').

[10] Buraq Logistics is listed as a sole proprietorship carrying out a business of transportation services, provision of sports equipment and delivery of food and beverages. It commenced and registered its business on 12 January 2017, but its business license expired on 26 August 2019. Yet, as explained below, the second defendant had seemingly paid out part of the plaintiff's monies into Buraq Logistics' bank account for "exchange services".

[11] Where necessary, Ahmad Abdul Salam and Amirul Syahiran will be collectively referred to as 'the proposed third and fourth defendants' below.

The Fraud

[12] The full background facts of the fraud have been set out in Zschimmer & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG Chemische Fabriken v. Persons Unknown & Anor, . Only the key and relevant facts are repeated below.

[13] The plaintiff was a victim of a push payment fraud. The first defendant had infiltrated the email communications betwe