Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The Plaintiffs’ claims

[1]The Plaintiffs are the transferors and/or payors of the total sum of RM4,406,568.00 to the respective Defendants and/or into the bank accounts that are and/or were held by the Defendants respectively.

[2]The Defendants are and/or were the respective account holders and/or recipients of the amounts that were paid and/or transferred by the Plaintiffs respectively.

[3]Sometime in May 2015, the 1st Plaintiff was approached by one Loi Hieng Hung (I/C No.: xxx) in respect of an investment. Loi is an acquaintance of the 1st Plaintiff from Miri Sarawak. The investment was in respect of the outsourcing of foreign labour for companies in Penang. Loi informed the 1st Plaintiff that the 1st Plaintiff will be entitled to 50% to 100% of the profits from the investment. The 1st Plaintiff had trusted Loi and decided to participate in the investment. The 1st Plaintiff had paid Loi a sum of RM500,000.00 in cash for the investment. Loi had represented to the 1st Plaintiff that he is/was a bankrupt and as such, monies in respect of the investment were to be paid into the accounts held by the Defendants.

[4]Pursuant to the representation by Loi between 2015 to February 2021, the Plaintiffs had made the payments to the Defendants and/or bank accounts held by the Defendants in Annexure A of the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiffs do no personally know and/or are not related and/or acquainted with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs do not have any dealings and/or relations with the Defendants whether contractually or otherwise.

Unjust Enrichment

[5]The Defendants’ receipt of the monies is not supported by any consideration. Accordingly, there is total failure of consideration on the part of the Defendants in their receipt of the monies from the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants’ retention of the monies would amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to restitution and the Defendants are liable to return the monies to the Plaintiffs.

Dishonest Assistance

[6]The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants had dishonestly assisted in the fraud by Loi and/or had knowingly received the monies, knowing that they are entitled to receive such monies and/or that they had provided no consideration whatsoever in return for the receipt of these monies.

Reliefs

[7]The cause of action by the Plaintiffs is for an order of restitution, misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants as follows:

(a)a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to monies paid to the Defendants;

(b)an order of restitution for the monies to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs;

(c)an order that the monies in the bank accounts held by the Defendants as set out in Annexure A to be paid to the Plaintiffs;

(d)a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to monies paid to the 4th and 11th Defendants as set out in Annexure B; and

(e)interests and costs.

2nd Plaintiff a bankrupt, case against 2nd Plaintiff struck off

[8]By Order of Court dated 4.8.2025 (Encl. 243), the 2nd Plaintiff’s solicitors Messrs Thomas Philip was discharged as Solicitors for the 2nd Plaintiff with no order as to costs. The Court was informed that the 2nd Plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt. No sanction has been obtained from the Director General of Insolvency to enable the 2nd Plaintiff to continue with this action. Consequently, the 2nd Plaintiff’s claim is thereby struck off. Section 38 (1) (a)Insolvency Act 1967

“38 Duties and disabilities of bankrupt

(1) Where a bankrupt has not obtained his discharge

(a) the bankrupt shall be incompetent to maintain any action (other than an action for damages in respect of an injury to his person) without the previous sanction of the Director General of Insolvency.”

[9]There is a total of 20 Defendants in this suit. Preceding the commencement of this trial, the Plaintiffs filed the following in relation to