THE LEGAL PROOF OF MACAU SCAM IN MALAYSIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33102/mjsl.vol10no1.307Keywords:
Cheat, fraud, legal proof, Macau scam, MalaysiaAbstract
Although there are 5218 Macau scam cases reported since January to October 2020, from the total of the cases, 1420 cases were charged and 2676 were arrested by the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP). This fact can be considered as strong evidence to proof that Macau scam is getting increasingly serious and has the potential to become even worse in the future. Therefore, this study is conducted to investigate the legal meaning of Macau scam, the relevant provision in Malaysian Statute, the methods of proving and the standard of proof applicable in convicting Macau scam crime. Empirical methods of investigation based on available reported cases about Macau scam or fraud are developed herein. Application of such methods will analyse each of the issues highlighted in this study. This study found that Macau's scam means that the fraudulent act deliberately cheats someone to get fast money by making them suffer a loss of money. Besides that, there are provisions that may be applicable to Macau scam; as one of the forms of fraud contained in the Penal Code (Act 574), Section 24, Section 25, Section 415, Section 170 and Section 420. Reviewing cases of fraud as the basis for the Macau scam, it was explicitly stated in most cases that the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor or the group who wished to allege the Macau scam. The standard of proof in civil trials is in the balance of probabilities. The impact of the study is on phone users; victims of Macau scams and legal practitioners in Malaysia. Future studies may be conducted in the field of legal remedies for a Macau scam crime.
Downloads
References
Alwie Handoyo v. Tjong Very Sumito and another 2013 SGCA 44 (Singapore).
Aziz Bin Muhamad Din v. PP 1996 5 MLJ 473 (Malaysia).
Cambridge Dictionary. (2020). Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scam.
Chen, J. (2020). “You are in Trouble!”: A Discursive Psychological Analysis of Threatening Language in Chinese Cellphone Fraud Interactions. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law.
Dictionary.com. (2020). Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scam?s=ts.
F.H. v. McDougall 2008 S.C.J. No. 54 (Canada).
Hajdari, E. & Erlule, F. (2018). Elements, Types and Consequences of Fraud according to Obligation Law – A Comparative Approach between Legislation in Turkey and Kosovo. International Comparative Jurisprudence 2018, 4 (2).
Halsbury’s Laws of Malaysia. (2017). Vol. 10 (1).
Kranacher, M., Riley, R. A., Wells, J. T. (2010). Forensic Accounting and Fraud Examination. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lam, A. (2019, November 29). What Is The ‘Macau Scam’? Macau Daily Times. Retrieved October 21, 2020, from https://Macaudailytimes.com.mo/what-is-the-Macau-scam.html#:~:text=“The term 'Macau Scam',this has never been confirmed.
Law.com. (2019). Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://dictionary.law com/Default.aspx?selected. =785
Learn to recognise scams so you won't be cheated, experts urge. (2020). The Star. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/10/12/learn-to-recognise-scams-so-you-won039t-be-cheated-experts-urge.
Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan v. Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd 2017 4 MLJ 697 (Malaysia).
Macau Scam. (2020). The Star. Retrieved October 21, 2020, from https://www.thestar.com.my/search?pgno=8&q=Macau scam&qsort=newest&qrec=10&qstockcode=.
Meneses, J. Paulo. (2017). Retrieved November 6, 2020, from https://www.Macaubusiness.com/Macau-scam-malaysian-scam/
Merriam-Webster. (2019). Retrieved July 22, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud.
Merriam-Webster. (2020). Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam.
Mohd Faizal Mubarak et al. (2019). A Review of Phone Scam Activities in Malaysia. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET). Malaysia: Shah Alam.
Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij NV (Netherlands Trading Society) v. Koh Kim Guan 1959 1 MLJ 173 (Malaysia).
Penal Code (Act 574) 2006. (Malaysia).
Pendakwa Raya v. Ihebom Obinna Edward 2017 MLJU 2263 (Malaysia).
Ping Anak Layang v. Jee Shik Chuong & Anor 1991 2 MLJ 422 (Malaysia).
Re B (Children) 2008 UKHL 35 (United Kingdom).
Rejfek & Anor v. McElroy & Anor 1965 39 ALJR 177 (Australia).
Royal Malaysian Police. (2020). Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/JSJKPDRM/posts/122146626349991.
Saminathan v. Pappa 1981 1 MLJ 121 (Malaysia).
Sha Kannan & Anor v. Arunachalam A/L Venkatachalam & Anor And Another Appeal 2017 MLJU 1568 (Malaysia).
Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd 2015 MLJU 0292 (Malaysia).
Tang Yoke Kheng (Trading As Niklex Supply Co) v. Lek Benedict and Others 2005 SGCA 27 (Singapore).
The Free Dictionary. (2020). Retrieved October 21, 2020, from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/scam.
Wells, J. T. (2010). Principles of Fraud Examination. 3rd Edition. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yatin Bin Mahmood v. Mohd Madzhar Bin Sapuan & Ors 2010 8 MLJ 647 (Malaysia).
Yong Chou Chuen v. Ling Ming Sing & Anor 2004 7 MLJ 551 (Malaysia).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nurbazla Ismail, Zulfakar Ramlee, Afridah Abas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
