JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

[1] This is an action founded on deceit. The plaintiffs claim that they were induced by false representations and fabricated documents to part with substantial sums of money, which they sue to recover together with interest and costs. The 1st Plaintiff ("P1") is a company of which the 2nd Plaintiff ("P2") is the director and shareholder. The 1st Defendant ("D1") was the principal actor in the dealings complained of; the 2nd Defendant ("D2") is his daughter and the 3rd Defendant ("D3") is her husband. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants acted in concert to deceive them.

[2] This trial was part-heard. It commenced before my predecessor, the Honourable Justice Nurulhuda Nur'aini Binti Mohamad Nor, on 8 October 2024, when the PW1 affirmed and gave his evidence-in-chief. Following Her Ladyship's transfer to the Kuala Lumpur High Court , the matter came before me and I continued the trial from the stage which it had reached before my predecessor. I conducted the trial on the following dates: 22, 23, 27 and 28 January 2026, 2 March 2026 and 9, 15 and 16 April 2026.

[3] In reaching my decision I have had the benefit of and have carefully considered, the Court Recording Transcript (CRT) of the trial proceedings conducted before my predecessor and my findings take into account the evidence so recorded. I heard the cross-examination and re-examination of PW1 and the whole of the evidence of PW2, D2 and D3 given before me over the 2026 trial dates. My assessment of the credibility of D2 and D3 accordingly rests on my having seen and heard them testify before me.

[4] This is my decision and grounds.

[5] The plaintiffs' pleaded case, drawn from the statement of claim, may be summarised as follows. In or about June 2020 P2 came to know D1, who offered consultancy services to advance P1's business and in particular, to obtain a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) of USD 12 million from WBA Financial Services Ltd ("WBA") in the United Kingdom. D1 introduced D2 as his assistant for documentation and correspondence. Due to the COVID-19 and because the borders were closed, dealings were conducted by email and WhatsApp.

[6] On 16 November 2020, D1 informed P2 that he had advanced USD 120,000.00 of his own funds towards the WBA commission and showed P2 a transfer receipt purportedly from D3's DBS Bank account to WBA. In reliance on that representation, P2 paid D1 USD 120,000.00 on 18 November 2020 and a further USD 240,000.00 on 19 November 2020, making up the total commission of USD 360,000.00.

[7] In February 2021 D1 and D2 introduced a diesel trading venture with BTAZ Global Pte Ltd which, the plaintiffs say, required an advance of USD 150,000.00. Persuaded by the documents shown to him, P2 raised and handed USD 150,000.00 to D1 on 18 February 2021.

[8] When nothing materialised, P2 made enquiries of DBS and UOB, was advised that the documents were not genuine and confronted D1. The plaintiffs say D1 admitted falsifying the SBLC documents and the transfer receipt and promised repayment. D1 is said to have acknowledged spending of RM432,207.00 during the consultancy period, in respect of which D2 issued a cheque for SGD 144,069.00 in favour of P2's wife that was dishonoured, as was a replacement. The plaintiffs also claim a friendly loan of RM50,000.00 made to D1 in August 2020.

[9] The plaintiffs accordingly claim, against the defendants jointly or severally:

(a) RM50,000.00;

(b) USD 360,000.00 (pleaded as RM1,512,000.00 at USD 1 = RM4.20);

(c) USD 150,000.00 (pleaded as RM630,000.00);

(d) RM432,207.00; and

(e) interest and costs.

[10] The defence, as pleaded for all three defendants, is in substance a denial coupled with a series of positive assertions. D1 claimed that:

(a) he never offered himself as a consultant and that no consultancy appointment was ever made;

(b) the plaintiffs entered the SBLC transaction voluntarily and "with open eyes";

(c) his role was merely