Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
No standalone tort of extortion exists in Malaysia; consistently rejected as civil claim, treated solely as criminal offense under Penal Code s 383. References to extortion appear in defining tort of abuse of process (e.g., process diverted... to serve extortion or oppression), but do not establish independent tort ["NIK MOHD SUHAIMI AHMAD GHAZALI vs SITI FAIRUZ SHAMSURI & ORS - High Court"] ["CHANG NGA @ TEH SIEW YOKE & 8 ORS vs LEE LANG & 9 ORS - Court Of Appeal"] ["BAYLAND SDN BHD & ANOR vs PAULUS DE KRUIJFF - High Court"] ["Bayland Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Paulus De Kruijff - High Court"] ["LIM YOI JOO LIM OY JOO vs MB INDUSTRIES SDN BHD - High Court"]
In today's litigious environment, individuals and businesses facing threats or coercive demands often wonder about their legal recourse. Imagine being pressured to hand over money or property through fear—could you sue for the tort of extortion in a Malaysian civil court? This question arises frequently, especially in disputes involving contracts, business dealings, or personal conflicts. However, Malaysian law draws a clear line: extortion is not recognized as a tort. Instead, it remains firmly in the realm of criminal law. This blog post dives into the legal landscape, supported by judicial precedents, to clarify why civil claims for extortion typically fail and what options exist instead.
Extortion is explicitly defined as a criminal offence under Section 383 of the Penal Code. The provision states: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits 'extortion'. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1696TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 91TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 325NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 1141NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 2138SUGUMARAN GOVINDASAMY LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2024 MarsdenLR 4620
This definition underscores its penal nature, focusing on intentional inducement through fear for dishonest gain. Malaysian courts consistently emphasize that extortion lacks any parallel civil tort framework. As one judgment notes, Extortion is in fact criminal in nature... As such, it is not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try penal offences. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1696
To establish extortion criminally, prosecutors must prove:- Intentional inducement of fear of injury.- Dishonest delivery of property or valuables as a result. NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 1141NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 2138
These elements are strictly applied in criminal proceedings, but attempts to transplant them into civil suits have met uniform rejection.
Malaysian civil courts have repeatedly struck out or dismissed claims framed as tortious extortion for want of a viable cause of action. A recurring theme in judgments is the absence of statutory or common law support for civil damages. For instance, in assessing a damages claim, the court held: the claim for damages under extortion is clearly having no merits as there is no cause of action for extortion in civil action. Extortion is a criminal offence provided under s 383 of the Penal Code. However, the Plaintiff had failed to submit which law would entitle him claiming damages in civil action for such extortion. Neither was there anywhere in s 383 of the Penal Code to empower him to such damages. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 91TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 325
Plaintiffs bear the burden of identifying enabling legislation, which they consistently fail to do. Courts view such claims as meritless, lacking jurisdiction over penal matters. Even in contexts like contract coercion, where extortion is alleged, proof of elements such as fear of injury on a balance of probabilities is required—but courts stop short of recognizing an independent tort. NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 1141NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 2138
Extortion is often compared to criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the Penal Code, which is similarly criminal. One analysis distinguishes: Criminal intimidation is closely analogous to extortion. In extortion the immediate purpose is obtaining money or money's worth while in criminal intimidation the immediate purpose is to induce the person threatened to do or abstain from doing something... PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD AZLAN ABDUL AZIZ - 2017 MarsdenLR 800
This reinforces that threat-based offences remain criminal, not civil torts. Comparative insights from jurisdictions like India, where extortion is also codified under Section 383 IPC with punishments under Sections 384 and 386, show parallel treatment as serious crimes against society, not actionable in tort without specific civil provisions. Vidadala Rajani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(AP) 57Gurmail Singh VS State of Punjab - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 19PRIYA HARSHVARDHAN VS STATE NCT OF DELHI - 2018 Supreme(Del) 924
In cases involving kidnapping or wrongful confinement linked to extortion (e.g., IPC Sections 342/506/385), courts acquit where evidence shows voluntary actions, highlighting the high evidentiary bar even criminally. PRIYA HARSHVARDHAN VS STATE NCT OF DELHI - 2018 Supreme(Del) 924
While not directly on extortion, Malaysian courts' stance on other penal-rooted claims provides context. For example, no general tort of fraud based on perjury exists, protected by absolute witness immunity in civil proceedings. As held: On the alleged tort of fraud based on perjury, Malaysia does not recognise a general tort of fraud based on alleged perjury... Ng Wai Pin vs Ong Yew Teik and otherNG WAI PIN vs ONG YEW TEIK & OTHER APPEALS
This mirrors the extortion landscape: courts protect judicial finality and bar satellite litigation over criminal allegations without civil empowerment. Claims of malicious prosecution in civil contexts are similarly curtailed to avoid undermining proceedings. Ng Wai Pin vs Ong Yew Teik and other
If you suspect extortion:- Pursue criminal remedies: Report to police under Penal Code s.383 for investigation and prosecution. Courts impose stringent penalties, reflecting the offence's gravity against society. Tanaji @ Tillya Dinkar Walgude VS State of Maharashtra - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1912- Explore civil alternatives: Consider torts like conspiracy to injure, unlawful interference with trade, or intimidation if facts align—but plead independently of penal definitions to avoid dismissal.- Avoid parallel proceedings: Criminal complaints under related sections (e.g., s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act with extortion) take precedence; police probes may be quashed if duplicative. Mohammed Ashraf VS State of Rajasthan- Seek anticipatory bail if accused: Available absent prima facie cases, especially with delays or motivations suggesting abuse. Vidadala Rajani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(AP) 57
Always consult counsel to tailor pleadings, as generic extortion references invite summary judgment.
This post provides general information based on reported cases and is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations may evolve; consult a qualified Malaysian lawyer for your specific situation.
References:1. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1696: No civil cause for extortion.2. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 91: Damages claim meritless.3. TAN KOK PIN vs LOH CHUN HOO & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 325: Lack of civil jurisdiction.4. NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 1141, NG SUAN CHIEK vs ASTRAZENECA SDN BHD - 2011 MarsdenLR 2138: Failed civil proofs.5. SUGUMARAN GOVINDASAMY LWN. PENDAKWA RAYA - 2024 MarsdenLR 4620: s.383 definition.6. PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. MOHD AZLAN ABDUL AZIZ - 2017 MarsdenLR 800: Intimidation distinction.7. Additional comparative sources as noted.
#ExtortionLaw, #MalaysiaTortLaw, #PenalCodeMalaysia
- See: Malaysia Building Society v. Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin (supra), at p 435. ... This tort is newly introduced in Malaysia. It entails the torts of wrongful arrest/detention/wrongful imprisonment etc. and the lists are not closed. Apart from the United Kingdom, some other Commonwealth Countries, example New Zealand, Australia and Canada has recognized it. ... However, this Court disallowed the claim for malicious prosecution against the Defendants as the Court ruled that this tort is simply unsustainable in #....
, aggravated or exemplary damages against D2 as global sum on the tort of conspired to injury, slander, breach of personal data and extortion; (c) general, aggravated or exemplary damage against the 3rd to the 14th Defendant jointly and severally, as global sum, on tort of conspiracy, slander and ... extortion; (d) general aggravated or exemplary damages against D15, as global sum, on the tort of conspiracy to injure, threat, breach of personal data, extortion and misrepresentation; (e....
I also find that the Plaintiff's claim for tort of conspired to injury, slander and extortion falls within the very definition of frivolous and vexatious claim and is an abuse of the process of the Court. ... [5] Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit against these Defendants inter alia for general, aggravated or exemplary damages against these Defendants as global sum on the tort of conspired to Injury, slander, and extortion on the Plaintiff. ... Besides, the claim for damages under extortion is cle....
[167]On the alleged tort of fraud based on perjury, Malaysia does not recognise a general tort of fraud based on alleged perjury in the first suit as suggested by the plaintiff. ... (5)(per Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ, majority) On the alleged tort of fraud based on perjury, Malaysia did not recognise a general tort of fraud based on alleged perjury in Suit 1333. ... pendakwaan jahat dalam prosiding sivil hendaklah diterima di Malaysia (‘soalan 3 yang disemak semula’); ....
In Malaysia, it falls under the Penal Code where s 383 of the Penal Code. The Section crminalizes extortion. As such, it is not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try penal offences. ... I also find that the Plaintiff's claim for tort of conspired to injury, slander, breach of data protection and extortion falls within the very definition of frivolous and vexatious claim and is an abuse of the process of the Court. ... [6] Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the Suit against D2 inter alia for general, aggravated o....
claim in Malaysia. ... Whether a contended cause of action premised upon the tort of fraud based on perjury is a recognised and/or actionable claim in Malaysia. ... Whether a contended cause of action premised upon the tort of fraud based on perjury is a recognised and/or actionable claim in Malaysia." ... [167] On the alleged tort of fraud based on perjury, Malaysia does not recognise a general tort of fraud based on alleged perjury in the 1st suit....
[5] This Court has in Malaysia Building Society Berhad v. Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin Bin Ungku Mohamed, [1998] 2 MLJ 425 applied Goldsmith v. Sperrings. ... It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication of men's rights or the enforcement of just claims It is abused when it is diverted from it is true course so as to serve extortion or oppression: or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. ... Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not an essential ingredient of the tort that the proceeding in....
Vijendran Ponniah, [2010] 6 CLJ 643, in the event that this Court decides that there exist a reasonable cause of action in the Plaintiffs' claims, the issue of malice need not be addressed. ... Findings [16] The judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in Malaysia Building Society Bhd (supra) elucidated on the tort of collateral abuse of process as follows: "Every person who is aggrieved by some wrong he considers done him ... [14] On his claim for tort of abuse of process, the Defendant's counsel argu....
It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression: or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. ... FINDINGS [16]The judgment of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in Malaysia Building Society Bhd (supra) elucidated on the tort of collateral abuse of process as follows: "Every person who is aggrieved by some wrong ... [14]On his claim for to....
It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression; or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. ... The proposition stated in the said case does not support the facts in the instant case, for the plaintiff's allegation is that the previous directors have committed a tort against him. ... As a cautionary measure I have asked the papers to be served on the previous directors as well as Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM). SSM made an application to intervene and I allowed the same. ... Ko....
“Section 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. —Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” “Extortion” has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC as follows:— “Section 383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to d....
The extortion is defined in Section 383 I.P.C. as under :- 10. Section 384 I.P.C. provides punishment for extortion. “Whosoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion”.
There must be a dishonest inducement putting that person in fear of any injury or delivery of property. ‘Extortion’ has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC.
—Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. 11. “Extortion” is defined in Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- “Extortion.
The whole purpose of imposing stringent punishment for commission of this crime enumerated in the penal provisions is based upon the fact that the offences are of serious nature. Act of extortion has become a regular feature in the society. The accused cannot be permitted to adopt means of settlement with the complainant and seek quashing the proceedings. The Applicants are required to be subjected to prosecution and penalty by the Court of law.
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
