JUDGMENT

Adlin Abdul Majid J:

A. Introduction

[1] The plaintiff in the main action filed an application for a Mareva Injunction against the defendant in the main action ("Mareva Injunction Application").

[2] The court dismissed the application, after finding insufficient evidence of a risk that the defendant will dissipate his assets.

B. Background Facts

[3] The plaintiff filed this claim to seek an amount of RM3,225,000.00, which the plaintiff claimed was misappropriated by the defendant.

[4] The plaintiff claimed he made payments totalling RM6,950,000.00 to the defendant, for the purpose of investments in various companies affiliated with Dato' Simon Cheong Hong Mun ("Dato' Simon"). The payments were made in cryptocurrency USDT, a form of cryptocurrency where the value of cryptocurrency is tethered and/or pegged to United States Dollars. The sums were transferred to the defendant's cryptocurrency wallet ("Defendant's Digital Wallet"), based on the understanding that the defendant will remit the sums to Dato' Simon, his agents and/or nominees.

[5] The plaintiff claimed that sometime in July 2023, he discovered from Dato' Simon that out of the RM6,950,000.00 he had paid to the defendant, the defendant had misappropriated and retained a sum of RM3,225,000.00.

[6] The defendant's main defence is that the parties were involved in money laundering transactions. He filed a counterclaim, seeking amongst others, an order for the plaintiff to show proof of his source of funds, and a declaration that the exchange of cryptocurrency into Ringgit Malaysia is illegal as it contravenes the Exchange Control Act 1953 and other relevant laws.

C. The Mareva Injunction Application

[7] By the Mareva Injunction Application, the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from:

a. removing from Malaysia any of his assets which are in Malaysia, up to the value of RM3,225,000.00; or

b. disposing or dealing with, or diminishing the value of any of his assets in or outside Malaysia, up to the value of RM3,225,000.00.

[8] The prohibition would apply to any credit balances, monies or cryptocurrency held in any financial institution or service provider, any shares in any company, and any real property.

D. Considerations And Findings

Conditions To Be Met To Grant A Mareva Injunction

[9] In examining the merits of the Mareva Injunction Application, I considered the conditions required to be met to grant a Mareva Injunction. These conditions, set out in S & F International Ltd v. Trans-Con Engineering Sdn Bhd; [1985] 1 MLJ 62; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 280 and Creative Furnishing Sdn Bhd v. Wong Koi; [1989] 2 MLJ 153; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 22, are as follows:

a. The plaintiff must have a good arguable case against the defendant;

b. The defendant must have assets within the jurisdiction; and

c. There is a real risk of that the assets will be dissipated or removed.

First Condition: A Good Arguable Case

[10] In considering the first condition, namely whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case against the defendant, I found the case of Biasamas Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Kan Yan Heng & Anor; [1998] 4 MLJ 1; [1998] 4 CLJ 754; [1998] 4 AMR 3377 to be instructive. On the question of whether a good arguable case had been proven, the court of Appeal held as follows:

"What is a good arguable case is difficult to define. The respondents need not show that they have a case so strong as to warrant summary judgment nor even a strong prima facie case. It would generally be sufficient if the respondents can show on the evidence available, there is a fair chance that they will obtain judgment against the appellants (see Ninemia Maritime Corp v. Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG; The Niedersachsen [1984] 1 All ER 398, on appeal to CA [1984] 1 All ER 413; [1983] 1 WLR 1412). "

[Emphasis Added]

[11] In S&F International (supra), the Federal court adopted the reasoning by Mustill J in Ninemia Maritime Corpn v. Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG, The Niedersachen [1984] 1 All ER 398, which was affirmed on a