Carrying on a business in a regulated activity, namely dealing in derivatives, without holding a Capital Markets Services Licence (CMSL).

Su was charged on 5 July 2017 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

On 12 December 2022, after a full trial, the court found that Su failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and proceeded to convict him on both charges. Su was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of RM1 million (in default, a further one year imprisonment) for each charge. The court ordered for the imprisonment term for both charges to be served concurrently.

Following the decision of the Sessions Court, Su filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court. The Sessions Court allowed Su’s application for a stay of execution of both the imprisonment and fine pending the disposal of his appeal to the High Court.

Carrying on a business in a regulated activity, namely dealing in derivatives, without holding a Capital Markets Services Licence (CMSL).

Yap was charged on 5 July 2017 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

On 12 December 2022, after a full trial, the court found that Yap failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and proceeded to convict him on both charges. Yap was sentenced Yap to one year imprisonment and a fine of RM1 million (in default, a further one year imprisonment) for each charge. The court ordered for the imprisonment term for both charges to be served concurrently.

Following the decision of the Sessions Court, Yap filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court. The Sessions Court allowed Yap’s application for a stay of execution of both the imprisonment and fine pending the disposal of his appeal to the High Court.

Market manipulation

1. Dato’ Goh Hock Choy
2. Siow Chung Peng

Dato’ Goh Hock Choy (“Goh”) was charged under section 84(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”) for creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Lii Hen Industries Berhad (“Lii Hen”) shares by being concerned in the sale and purchase of Lii Hen shares that did not involve any change of beneficial ownership.  The manipulative trades were allegedly executed through 42 accounts at nine stockbroking firms. The offence was alleged to have been committed between 26 March 2004 and 28 October 2004.  

Siow Chung Peng (“Siow”) was charged under Section 84(1) of the SIA read together with Section 122C(c) of the same Act for abetting Goh in the principal offence above.

The trial commenced in September 2014 and the Prosecution closed its case in August 2020 after having called 31 witnesses.

On 16 July 2021, the Sessions Court held that the Prosecution had proven a prime facie case and ordered Goh and Siow to enter their defence.   

On 7 September 2021, the defence case commenced.

On 20 October 2022, Goh pleaded guilty to the charge against him pursuant to a plea bargain process under section 172C of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). The Sessions Court convicted Goh and sentenced him to 1 day imprisonment and a fine of RM4 million (in default 30 months imprisonment).

On 12 December 2022, Siow pleaded guilty to an alternative charge under section 29A of the Securities Industry (Central Depository) Act 1991 (“SICDA”) pursuant to a plea bargain process under section 172C of the CPC. The Sessions Court convicted Siow and sentenced him to 1 day imprisonment and a fine of RM400,000.00 (in default 6 months imprisonment).

Holding out as carrying on a business in the regulated activity of fund management without holding a Capital Markets Services License (“CMSL”)

Uzir was also charged with two offences under section 362(3) of the CMSA for using the titles “Fund Manager” and “Securities Commission Capital Market Services Representative’s Licence (CMSRL) holder” respectively, which created the belief that he was licensed to carry on the business of fund management.

Furnishing of false statements to Bursa Malaysia

Tan Han Kook
(“Jackson Tan”)

Jackson Tan was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with 7 counts of knowingly permitting the furnishing of false statements relating to the revenue of Silver Bird Group Berhad (“SBGB”) to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad.

The charges under section 369(b)(B) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) were in relation to SBGB’s three quarterly reports for the Financial Year 2010 and four quarterly reports for the Financial Year 2011.

Jackson Tan was charged on 11 September 2013.

On 2 November 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain under section 172C of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), Jackson Tan pleaded guilty to one charge of furnishing a false statement contained in Silver Bird’s unaudited quarterly financial result for the financial year ended 2010 to Bursa Malaysia.

Furnishing of false statements to Bursa Malaysia

Ching Siew Cheong
(“Derec Ching”)

Derec Ching was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with 8 counts of knowingly permitting the furnishing of false statements relating to the revenue of Silver Bird Group Berhad (“SBGB”) to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad.

The charges under section 369(b)(B) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) were in relation to SBGB’s four quarterly reports for the Financial Year 2010 and four quarterly reports for the Financial Year 2011.

Derec Ching was charged on 11 September 2013.

On 2 November 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain under section 172C of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), Derec Ching pleaded guilty to one charge of furnishing a false statement contained in Silver Bird’s unaudited quarterly financial result for the financial year ended 2010 to Bursa Malaysia.

Market manipulation

1. Dato’ Goh Hock Choy
2. Siow Chung Peng

Dato’ Goh Hock Choy (“Goh”) was charged under section 84(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”) for creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Lii Hen Industries Berhad (“Lii Hen”) shares by being concerned in the sale and purchase of Lii Hen shares that did not involve any change of beneficial ownership.  The manipulative trades were allegedly executed through 42 accounts at nine stockbroking firms. The offence was alleged to have been committed between 26 March 2004 and 28 October 2004. 

Siow Chung Peng (“Siow”) was charged under Section 84(1) of the SIA read together with Section 122C(c) of the same Act for abetting Goh in the principal offence above

The trial commenced in September 2014 and the Prosecution closed its case in August 2020 after having called 31 witnesses.

On 16 July 2021, the Sessions Court held that the Prosecution had proven a prime facie case and ordered Goh and Siow to enter their defence.   

On 7 September 2021, the defence case commenced.

On 20 October 2022, Goh pleaded guilty to the charge in the midst of giving his testimony in court. The Sessions Court convicted Goh and sentenced him to 1 day imprisonment and a fine of RM4 million (in default 30 months imprisonment).

Abetting one Toh Chun Toh Gordon to engage in an act which operates as a fraud in connection with the purchase of securities (Principal Charge)
Criminal breach of trust (Alternative Charge)

Abul Hasan, the Director of Multi-code, was charged with abetting Toh Chun Toh Gordon in engaging in an act which operated as a fraud on Multi-code, in utilizing RM17.6 million of its funds to finance the purchase of 11.1 million Multi-code shares. Abul Hasan also faced an alternative charge of committing criminal breach of trust involving RM26 million of Multi-code’s funds.

• Abul Hasan was charged on 13 March 2009, together with Toh Chun Toh Gordon (Gordon).
• On 22 September 2011, the Sessions Court Judge convicted both Abul Hasan and Gordon of committing criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Penal Code. Abul Hasan was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment while Gordon was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and also a fine of RM1 million.
• Abul Hasan and Gordon filed an appeal to the High Court against the conviction and sentence.
• The appeal by Gordon has since abated upon his demise on 27 August 2012.
• On 29 September 2020, the High Court allowed Abul’s appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
• On 2 October 2020, an appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed against the acquittal and discharge of Abul by the AGC/SC.
• The AGC and SC jointly conducted the appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal on 27 May 2022. On 20 July 2022, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the AGC/SC’s appeal, and set aside the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal further remitted the case to the High Court for merits of the case to be heard before another High Court judge.

Amirruddin bin Nin (“Amirruddin”) was charged with 3 counts of offences under section 32(8)(a) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) for failing to comply with Orders issued by an SC Investigating Officer in 2017 and 2018. The Orders required him to attend before the Investigating Officer for examination relating to a money laundering investigation pursuant to section 32(3)(a) of AMLATFPUAA

Amirruddin who is the Director of CTB Solutions Sdn Bhd was required by the Public Prosecutor to assist in an ongoing investigation under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 and AMLATFPUAA.

Amirruddin was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on 19 February 2020.
After a full trial, on 14 July 2022, the Sessions Court convicted Amirruddin on all 3 charges and sentenced him as follows :

• A fine of RM100,000 and 1 day imprisonment for each of the 3 charges (in default of fine, 6 months imprisonment);
• Imprisonment term for all 3 charges to run concurrently;
• A daily fine of RM2,000 for the 979 days he had failed to appear before an Investigating Officer of the Securities Commission as required which amounts to RM1,958,000 (12 months imprisonment in default).

In total, Amirruddin is required to pay a fine of RM2,258,000.

Serba Dinamik was charged on 28 December 2021.

On 13 April 2022, the SC with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”), and pursuant to its powers under section 373(1) of the CMSA issued a compound notice to Serba Dinamik.

On 9 May 2022, Serba Dinamik paid the compound sum of RM3,000,000.

On 13 May 2022, the charge against Serba Dinamik was withdrawn in the KL Sessions Court.

Mohd Karim was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with furnishing a false statement relating to the revenue of Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad (“Serba Dinamik”) to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad. The charge which was preferred under section 369(a)(B) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) was in relation to Serba Dinamik’s Quarterly Report on the Consolidated Results for the Quarter and Year Ended 31 December 2020.

Mohd Karim, who at the material time was a director of Serba Dinamik, is deemed to have committed an offence under section 369(a)(B) read together with section 367(1) of the CMSA and punishable under section 369 of the same Act.

Mohd Karim was charged on 29 December 2021.

On 13 April 2022, the SC with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”), and pursuant to its powers under section 373(1) of the CMSA issued a compound notice to Mohd Karim.

On 9 May 2022, Mohd Karim paid the compound sum of RM3,000,000.

On 13 May 2022, the charge against Mohd Karim was withdrawn in the KL Sessions Court.

On 13 April 2022, the SC with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”), and pursuant to its powers under section 373(1) of the CMSA issued a compound notice to Syed Nazim.

On 9 May 2022, Syed Nazim paid the compound sum of RM3,000,000.

On 13 May 2022, the charge against Syed Nazim was withdrawn in the KL Sessions Court.

Azhan was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with furnishing a false statement relating to the revenue of Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad (“Serba Dinamik”) to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad. The charge which was preferred under section 369(a)(B) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) was in relation to Serba Dinamik’s Quarterly Report on the Consolidated Results for the Quarter and Year Ended 31 December 2020.

Azhan, who at the material time was an officer of Serba Dinamik, is deemed to have committed an offence under section 369(a)(B) read together with section 367(1) of the CMSA and punishable under section 369 of the same Act.

Azhan was charged on 28 December 2021.

On 9 May 2022, Azhan paid the compound sum of RM3,000,000.

On 13 May 2022, the charge against Azhan was withdrawn in the KL Sessions Court.

Muhammad Hafiz was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with furnishing a false statement relating to the revenue of Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad (“Serba Dinamik”) to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad. The charge which was preferred under section 369(a)(B) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”) was in relation to Serba Dinamik’s Quarterly Report on the Consolidated Results for the Quarter and Year Ended 31 December 2020.

Muhammad Hafiz, who at the material time was an officer of Serba Dinamik, is deemed to have committed an offence under section 369(a)(B) read together with section 367(1) of the CMSA and punishable under section 369 of the same Act.

On 13 April 2022, the SC with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”), and pursuant to its powers under section 373(1) of the CMSA issued a compound notice to Muhammad Hafiz.

On 9 May 2022, Muhammad Hafiz paid the compound sum of RM3,000,000.

On 13 May 2022, the charge against Muhammad Hafiz was withdrawn in the KL Sessions Court.

Muhammad Hafiz was charged in the Shah Alam Sessions Court for causing the books of Serba Dinamik Sdn Bhd (“SDSB”), a related corporation to Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad (“Serba Dinamik”) to be falsified. Muhammad Hafiz allegedly instructed the preparation of false documentations relating to the sales of SDSB whereby the information in the said false documentations were recorded in the accounting records of SDSB. The charge preferred against Muhammad Hafiz was under section 368(1)(b)(i) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”), and punishable under section 368(2) of the same Act. 

Muhammad Hafiz was charged on 29 December 2021.

On 13 April 2022, the SC with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor (“PP”), and pursuant to its powers under section 373(1) of the CMSA issued a compound notice to Muhammad Hafiz.

On 9 May 2022, Muhammad Hafiz paid the compound sum of RM1,000,000.

On 19 May 2022, the charge against Muhammad Hafiz was withdrawn in the Shah Alam Sessions Court.

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 struck out by the High Court as Gan had failed to attend the hearing of his appeal.

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.

Tan Soon Hin
(Tan)  

Tan was charged with 5 counts of money laundering under section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) for engaging in transactions involving proceeds of unlawful activity between January 2020 and November 2021.

The unlawful activity was in relation to the provision of unlicensed investment advice by Tan to investors.

Teh An See
(Teh)

Teh An See was charged with 5 counts of money laundering under section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) for receiving proceeds of unlawful activity between January 2020 and November 2021.

Teh is the wife of Tan Soon Hin (Tan) who was separately charged with 5 counts of money laundering under section 4(1)(a) of the same Act. The unlawful activity was in relation to the provision of unlicensed investment advice by Tan to investors.

Afiq was charged with 8 counts of money laundering under section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) for receiving and transferring proceeds of unlawful activity between May 2020 and October 2021.

The unlawful activity was in relation to the provision of unlicensed investment advice by Afiq to investors.

Natasha was charged with 1 count of money laundering under section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) for receiving proceeds of unlawful activity between May 2021 and October 2021.

Natasha is the wife of Muhamad Afiq bin Md Isa (Afiq) who was separately charged with 8 counts of money laundering under section 4(1)(b) of the same Act. The unlawful activity was in relation to the provision of unlicensed investment advice by Afiq to investors.

Charles Chua, formerly Vice President of Debt Markets at Hong Leong Investment Bank Berhad, was charged with 13 counts of securities fraud under Section 179(b) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”).

He is alleged to have deceived 10 individuals who suffered losses amounting to RM1,662,292.00 between July 2017 and May 2019. The monies were deposited by the investors into Charles’ banking accounts upon his representation in relation to purported investment schemes involving the subscription of securities, when in fact such schemes did not exist.

Charles Chua, formerly Vice President of Debt Markets at Hong Leong Investment Bank Berhad, was charged with 4 counts of securities fraud under Section 179(b) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”).

He is alleged to have deceived 4 individuals who suffered losses amounting to RM76,000.00 between February 2018 and April 2018. The monies were deposited by the investors into Charles’ banking accounts upon his representation in relation to purported investment schemes involving the subscription of securities, when in fact such schemes did not exist.

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.