Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LU GIR KUANG – Appellant
Versus
LLC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of sham agreements in moneylending. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of agreements and involved parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. interpretation of contracts and determination of sham. (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. implications of the moneylenders act 1951. (Para 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 5. illegality tainting the service agreement. (Para 22 , 26 , 32) |
Introduction
[1] The question for determination in the trial of this case is whether a set of agreements signed by the parties is a sham to conceal a loan by an unlicensed moneylender. This is the contention of the Defendants who are being sued on 2 of the agreements by the Plaintiff for recovery of RM2.150 million as unpaid service fees.
[2] The set of agreements comprises a Service Agreement dated 21 December 2020 ("Semce Agreement"), a Personal Guarantee & Indemnity dated 21 December 2020 ("Guarantee") and an Investment and Shareholder Agreement dated 24 December 2020 ("Investment Agreement").
[3] The participants in the transactions evidenced by the said set of agreements are a property developer (the 1st Defendant, "LLC"), its director (the 2nd Defendant, "Ling"), an intermediary
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
