Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The court initially reserved four legal questions for determination, mainly concerning the definition of "director" under the relevant legislation, the implications of non-compliance with statutory requirements, the nature of agency and directorship in criminal liability, and the application of the corporate entity principle in criminal cases (!) - (!) . The charges against the appellants involved criminal breach of trust and related offences, with specific facts surrounding their roles in transactions involving significant sums of money and the transfer of shares in

YAP SING HOCK & ANOR vs PP - 1992 MarsdenLR 42

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 MarsdenLR 42

SUPREME COURT KUALA LUMPUR
YAP SING HOCK & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:G Sri Ram,Arther Lee Meng Kuang ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Aik Guan

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court initially reserved four legal questions for determination, mainly concerning the definition of "director" under the relevant legislation, the implications of non-compliance with statutory requirements, the nature of agency and directorship in criminal liability, and the application of the corporate entity principle in criminal cases (!) - (!) .
The charges against the appellants involved criminal breach of trust and related offences, with specific facts surrounding their roles in transactions involving significant sums of money and the transfer of shares in

JUDGMENT

Peh Swee Chin SCJ:

[1] Four questions of law were earlier allowed to be reserved for determination by this Court under s 66 of the of Judicature Act 1964. They are as follows:

1. Whether the definition of "director" under s 4 of the Companies Act, 1965, a person can be held or deemed to be a director of a private limited company?
2. Whether, in the non-compliance with s 123(1) and (4) of the Companies Act 1965 a person can be held or deemed to be a director of a private limited company?
3. If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, can a person who is being charged as an agent, or as a director of a private limited company and in that capacity be held to act as an ad-hoc agent by the said company?
4. Whether a director/member of a private limited company can be said to have committed an offence under s 409 of the Penal Code by paying out monies from the said company's funds to a third party when he is the sole contributor of the paid-up capital and ultimately, the sole beneficial owner of all the issued shares of the said company?

[2] It would be necessary to set out some material facts whenever it is necessary to do so in this judgment.

[3] Three of the charges against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 MarsdenLR 42

SUPREME COURT KUALA LUMPURYAP SING HOCK & ANOR – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent

SUPREME COURT KUALA LUMPUR
YAP SING HOCK & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent