1. Claim for fraudulent conspiracy and unjust enrichment against a recipient who was an innocent conduit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 1800
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SEREMBAN
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ, J
HEALTHMETRICS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
THAM CARLWING & SATU LAGI – Respondent
[Guaman Sivil No: NA-22NCvC-48-08/2024]
A claim for conspiracy or fraud requires specific pleading and proof; a passive recipient of funds, without knowledge or benefit, is not liable for unjust enrichment or conspiracy.
Headnote:(A) Common Law - Breach of fiduciary duty - Abuse of trust - Unjust enrichment - Innocent recipient - Claim for restitution - In the absence of direct evidence of fraud or conspiracy, a mere claim that the defendant received funds is insufficient to establish liability; the plaintiff must plead and prove specific particulars of fraud or conspiracy. (Paras 22-29, 47)
(B) Tort - Conspiracy to defraud - Procedural fairness - A charge of conspiracy to defraud must be supported by full particulars in pleadings and proved beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to cross-examine a witness on a material issue may be treated as abandonment of that pleaded case. (Paras 44-45)
(C) Evidence - Standard of proof - The standard of proof for conspiracy to defraud is the same as for fraud, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and imprudence is not to be equated with dishonesty. (Para 44)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a private limited company, claimed that the first defendant (its former financial executive) siphoned a total of RM47,073,345.91 from the plaintiff's bank accounts, including RM1,461,474.96 transferred into the second defendant's bank account. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant and was not an employee of the plaintiff. The second defendant filed a defence denying any knowledge or involvement. The first defendant defaulted in filing a defence and judgment in default was entered against him. At trial, the plaintiff called three witnesses, but could only produce the bank statements of the second defendant's account as evidence against her. The first defendant testified that he had, without the second defendant's knowledge or consent, used her online banking to receive the funds and then transferred them to his own account for online gambling, leaving a balance of only RM71.14 in her account.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove its claim against the second defendant. It held that the second defendant was an innocent recipient of the funds, which passed through her account as a mere conduit pipe and did not benefit her. The plaintiff failed to produce any direct evidence that the second defendant was involved in any fraud or conspiracy with the first defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established the elements of unjust enrichment or conspiracy to defraud.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had established that the second defendant was involved in a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff; whether the second defendant had been unjustly enriched by receiving the funds; and whether the plaintiff had successfully challenged the supporting evidence given by the first defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a mere allegation of fraud or conspiracy, without specific and detailed particulars in the pleadings and direct evidence, cannot sustain a claim. Further, a person who is merely a passive recipient of funds, without knowledge or benefit, is not unjustly enriched and cannot be held liable. Finally, the court reiterated the principle of procedural fairness that a party’s case must be expressly put to the opponent's material witnesses during cross-examination.
Result: The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant was dismissed with costs of RM50,000.00 payable by the plaintiff to the second defendant, subject to allocatur fees.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff alleged conspiracy to defraud and unjust enrichment; Defendant-2 denied knowledge and claimed innocent receipt. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 22 , 23 , 30 , 31 )
3. Claim dismissed with costs for failure to prove fraudulent conspiracy and unjust enrichment. (Para 5 , 47 , 48 )
4. What are the requirements for pleading conspiracy to defraud?
Full particulars of fraud must be pleaded and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to provide direct evidence or particulars leads to dismissal. (Para 22 , 23 , 27 , 44 )
5. What constitutes unjust enrichment?
Claimant must show defendant was enriched by a benefit, obtained at plaintiff's expense, and it would be unjust to retain. A mere conduit who does not benefit is not unjustly enriched. (Para 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
6. What is the effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a material issue?
Failure to cross-examine a party's material witnesses may be treated as abandonment of the pleaded case, barring the party from raising it in argument. (Para 42 , 44 )
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Di dalam kes ini melalui Writ Saman Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda, Plaintif menuntut terhadap Defendan-Defendan untuk mendapatkan perintah-perintah yang berikut:
(a) Terhadap Defendan-Defendan secara bersesama dan berasingan:
(i) Sejumlah RM47,073,345.91 iaitu jumlah keseluruhan yang disebabkan untuk dipindahkan dan/atau didebitkan dan/atau dibawa keluar (siphoned out) daripada Plaintif;
(ii) Ganti rugi am untuk ditaksirkan;
(iii) Ganti rugi teladan untuk ditaksirkan;
(iv) Faedah pada kadar 8% setahun ke atas semua jumlah yang diperintahkan untuk dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif dari tarikh kali pertama wang dibawa keluar (siphoned out) sehingga tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini;
(v) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas semua jumlah yang diperintahkan untuk dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;
(vi) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas kos menurut A 59 k 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; dan
(vii) Relif-relif selanjutnya atau lain yang difikirkan adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
(b) Terhadap Defendan Pertama:
(i) Suatu injunksi bahawa Defendan Pertama sama ada melalui beliau sendiri dan/atau pekerja-pekerjanya di bawah arahannya dan/atau ejen-ejennya di bawah arahannya dan/atau nomini-nomininya di bawah arahannya benefisiari-benefisiarinya di bawah arahannya atau sesiapa yang mempunyai notis tentang perintah ini tidak boleh dengan apa-apa jua cara melupuskan atau mengendalikan atau mengurangkan nilai mana-mana aset-aset mereka sama ada aset-aset tersebut berada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia dan wang yang disimpan di dalam akaun-akaun bank berikut dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga pembayaran penuh dibuat kepada Plaintif:
(i.i) Nombor akaun Public Bank Berhad Defendan Pertama: 6432649730;
(i.ii) Nombor akaun Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited Berhad (OCBC) Defendan Pertama: 7082438754;
(i.iii) Nombor akaun bank Malayan Banking Berhad Defendan Pertama: 518617143603; dan
(i.iv) Nombor akaun bank Malayan Banking Berhad Defendan Pertama: 155015251801.
(ii) Suatu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama telah memungkiri kewajipan fidusiarinya, menyalahgunakan amanah yang diberikan oleh Plaintif dan/atau kewajipan kesetiaan dan/atau undang-undang am terhadap Plaintif;
(iii) Suatu perintah untuk jumlah RM45,611,870.95 atau apa-apa jumlah yang ditentukan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia sebagai jumlah wang yang dipindahkan daripada Plaintif untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh penghakiman;
(iv) Faedah pada kadar 8% setahun ke atas semua jumlah yang diperintahkan dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Plaintif dari tarikh kali pertama wang dibawa keluar (siphoned out) sehingga tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini:
(v) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas semua jumlah oleh Defendan yang diperintahkan dibayar Pertama kepada Plaintif dari tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;
(vi) Suatu perintah untuk mengesan (trace) semua wang dan aset kepunyaan Plaintif yang telah dipindahkan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada pekerja-pekerja, benefisiari-benefisiari, nomini-nomini atau ejen-ejen Defendan Pertama dari tarikh kali pertama wang dibawa keluar (siphoned out) sehingga semua wang dan aset dikesan (being traced);
(vii) Kos;
(viii) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas kos menurut A 59 k 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; dan
(ix) Relif-relif selanjutnya atau lain yang difikirkan adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
(c) Terhadap Defendan Ke-2:
(i) Suatu injunksi bahawa Defendan Kedua sama ada melalui beliau sendiri dan/atau pekerja-pekerjanya di bawah arahannya dan/atau ejen-ejennya di bawah arahannya dan/atau nomini-nomininya di bawah arahannya dan/atau benefisiari-benefisiarinya di bawah arahannya atau sesiapa yang mempunyai notis tentang perintah ini tidak boleh dengan apa-apa jua cara melupuskan atau mengendalikan atau mengurangkan nilai mana-mana aset-aset mereka sa
