Lee Koon Huat, the former Adviser to the Board of Directors of Axis Incorporation Berhad (“Axis”) was charged on 26 March 2013 with four counts of abetting Axis in furnishing false statements relating to the revenue of Axis to Bursa Malaysia.

The charges, which were preferred under section 122C(c) read together with section 122B(a)(bb) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA), were in relation to false statements contained in Axis’ Condensed Consolidated Income Statements for the four quarters in its financial year 2007.

The court ordered that the imprisonment terms be served concurrently. The court also ordered a stay of execution of the jail term pending Lee’s appeal to the High Court.

Gan, former Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director of Transmile Group Berhad (Transmile) was charged for abetting Transmile in making a misleading statement relating to Transmile’s revenue in the company’s Quarterly Report on Unaudited Consolidated Results for the Financial Year ended 31 December 2006 which was likely to induce the purchase of Transmile’s shares by other persons, an offence under section 86(b) read together with section 122C(c) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA).

Gan was also charged in alternative with intent to deceive, furnished a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia in the same financial statement, an offence under section 122B(a)(bb) read together with section 122(1) of the SIA.

On 26 May 2008, Gan was charged in the alternative under section 122B(a)(bb) read together with section 122(1) of the SIA.


The trial commenced on 22 July 2010 and the Prosecution closed its case on 28 January 2011 after having called 42 witnesses.

On 16 March 2011, the Sessions Court held that the Prosecution had proven a prima facie case and ordered Gan to enter his defence on the alternative charge.

On the eve of the hearing of the defence case, Gan filed an application under section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”) to challenge the constitutionality of section 122(1) of the SIA.

On 15 March 2017, the Federal Court upheld that section 122(1) of the SIA was constitutional and ordered for the case to be remitted to the Sessions Court for commencement of defence case.


Subsequently on 27 April 2017, Gan filed an application under rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 to review and set aside the decision of the Federal Court on 15 March 2017. On 21 June 2017, Gan’s application was dismissed by the Federal Court.

On the eve of the hearing of the defence case, Gan made another similar application under section 30 of the CJA before the Sessions Court but it was again unsuccessful.

On 6 December 2017, Gan filed an appeal to the High Court and simultaneously filed a motion for revision to the High Court on 15 December 2017.

On 15 January 2018, the High Court dismissed Gan’s motion for revision. On the very same day, Gan filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Gan’s appeal at the High Court was dismissed on 17 May 2018 after the Prosecution successfully raised preliminary objection.

On 18 May 2018, the Court of Appeal allowed the Prosecution’s preliminary objection and dismissed Gan’s appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered for the defence case to commence.

The defence case finally commenced in July 2018 and on 14 February 2020, the defence closed its case without calling any other witness.

On 27 August 2020, Gan was convicted by the Sessions Court on the alternative charge. Gan was sentenced to a fine of RM2.5million (in default, 18 months’ imprisonment) and 1 day imprisonment.

The SC has filed an appeal to the High Court against the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, whilst Gan is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

On 18 October 2021, Gan’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court. Gan’s conviction is affirmed by the High Court.

On 25 January 2022, the High Court proceeded to hear the SC’s appeal against sentence. The High Court allowed the appeal - maintained the RM2.5 million fine but set aside the 1 day imprisonment and substituted the imprisonment term with 24 months.

Azhidi was charged with 9 counts of offences under subsection 206(b) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) by engaging in an act which operated as a deception on 9 individuals by causing them to deposit a total sum of RM1,450,000.00 into the “Client Segregated Accounts” held by AmFutures Sdn Bhd for the purpose of a purported investment in futures crude palm oil which in fact did not exist.

Besides the 9 charges above, Azhidi was also charged with 1 charge under subsection 59(1) of the CMSA for holding himself out as a representative of AmFutures Sdn Bhd when he is not licensed by the Securities Commission Malaysia to carry out the regulated activity of dealing in derivatives.

He also faced another chargeunder section 134(5)(a) of the Securities Commission Malaysia Act 1993 (“SCMA”) for failing to comply with a notice issued by an SC Investigating Officer in 2018. The notice required him to attend before the Investigating Officer to be examined orally as required under subsection 134(1)(b) of the SCMA on 13 February 2018.

Azhidi was charged on 14 February 2022 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.