The Plaintiff failed to prove the legality and enforceability of the Loan Agreement and associated undertakings, leading to dismissal of the claim.

Azimah Omar JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] This present appeal before this Court was filed against the decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner ("Learned JC") dismissing the AppellantPlaintiff's claim against the Respondent-Defendant with costs of RM10,000.00.

[2] The Appellant-Plaintiff claimed for the return of a sum of 1 million Euros (which is equivalent to approximately RM4.82 million) which was supposedly remitted by the Appellant-Plaintiff to the Respondent-Defendant as an agent to an American corporate entity, Noble Mettle LLC ("Noble") under the terms of a Loan Agreement for a fantastical amount of One Hundred and Two Million Euros (102,000,000.00 Euros).

[3] The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were in the High Court .

[4] The Plaintiff ("Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn Bhd") had entered into a Loan Agreement for 102 MILLION EUROS (MORE THAN RM500,000,000.00) with Noble, via the agency and representation of the Defendant, an individual by the name of "Tan Sew Cheng".

[5] Despite a whopping HALF A BILLION RINGGIT loan amount which Noble had agreed to extend to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had pleaded that Noble still inexplicably required the Plaintiff to pay a processing and due diligence fee of two (2) million Euros (one (1) million Euros to be paid upfront and the remainder one (1) million Euros be paid from the first drawdown of the half a billion ringgit).

[6] I must also remark on the puzzling 'split' manner in which the first tranche of the processing and due diligence fee was paid by the Plaintiff on 31 December 2016. The Plaintiff first directly paid to Noble the sum of 100,000.00 Euros via wire transfer. However, despite being able to pay directly the 100,000.00 Euros via wire transfer, the Plaintiff had claimed that the remainder sum of 900,000.00 Euros were paid to Noble in the following manner:

a. VIA LUMP SUM CASH PAYMENT IN FOREIGN SGD CURRENCY; and

b. INDIRECTLY TO THE DEFENDANT (for onwards transmission to Noble).

[7] When the promised half-a-billion-ringgit loan was not forthcoming from Noble, instead of actively pursuing Noble for the release of the larger pool of money, the Plaintiff was bent on securing a 'refund' of the monies paid to the Defendant (as agent of Noble).

[8] The Plaintiff's peculiar abandonment of the half a billion ringgit loan (from Noble) and tenacity to instead chase after the markedly lesser 1 million Euros processing fee (from the Defendant) was so peculiar to the extent that the Court of Appeal had already put the legitimacy of this Loan Agreement to serious question (and postulated the 'likelihood' that the fantastical features of this Loan Agreement was a mere smokescreen of a moneylending or money laundering scheme).

[9] The bizarre facts and features underlying the logic-defying Loan Agreement had already been put to serious question at the Court of Appeal level when the Court of Appeal had reversed a prior High Court Decision (which initially allowed a Summary Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff). The Court of Appeal in allowing the appeal by the Defendant (against the decision granting the Plaintiff summary judgment) had reversed the High Court decision and ordered a Full Trial with specific issues to be tried to scrutinise and examine the stupefying and illegal features rife within the impugned Loan Agreement.

[10] At the end of the Plaintiff's case, the Plaintiff had obviously failed to discharge its own legal burden to prove a legally enforceable Loan Agreement to seek a refund. Thus, considering the Plaintiff's absence of a case, the Defendant opted to submit a No Case to Answer (and elected not to call any witness from the Defendant's side). Upon full trial and the Plaintiff's outright refusal to call key and material witnesses to testify on the stupendous Loan Agreement, the Learned JC had rightfully and astutely dismissed the Plaintiff's claim.

[11] Dissatisfied with the Learned JC's dismissal of its claim, the Plaintiff appealed to