INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT LAC4443 (ANG TECK HWA V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

By soffmahadzir1 | Updated: Dec. 24, 2024, 10:09 a.m.

Slideshow Video

SHARE THE AWESOMENESS

HIRE PURCHASE

Education

create your own animated videos for free

_abc cc

* Powtoon is not liable for any 3rd party content used. It is the responsibility of each user to comply with 3rd party copyright laws.

Embed code

Select a size, the embed code changes based on your selection.

_abc Powtoon Transcript

COMMERCIAL LAW
Hi
LAC4443
hire - purchase
SOFWATUN NAJWA 
BINTI MAHADZIR
ang teck gwa v. public prosecutor
[1988] 1 m.l.j.
hello, i am ang teck hwa, as car dealer
signing hire purchase contract
Ang Teck Hwa
Ang Teck Hwa sold a second-hand car to Seow for $12,800 and Seow made an initial payment of $3,300 to Ang.The remaining $9,500 was financed by SLF.
SLF purchased the car
 from Ang and entered into a hire purchase agreement with 
Seow on October 23, 1982.
Seow was required to 
repay the loan in 35 monthly installments 
of $375 each, plus a 
final installment of $365.
By June 1984, Seow had paid
 20 installments and settled the remaining balance of $5,444.80 early.
Ang failed to remit the 20th instalment of $375 and the final payment to our company, SLF and we didnt informed that Seow had fully settled his account
hi, i want to apply for the realese of the log book for the vehicle
SLF COMPANY
ANG 
ERROR DETECTED
!
WE NEVER RECEIVED THE LOG BOOK 
FROM anG
!
the reason given was "ROV Vehicle Inspection".

Ang was charged with criminal breach of trust as an agent, an offence under section409 of Penal Code.
held
1. Under Section 49, the prosecution must prove that the appellant was entrusted with dominion over the property and dishonestly misappropriated it under Section 405.

2. The appellant did not receive a loan from SLF but held payments on trust for SLF until their remittance.

3. The evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant acted with dishonest intent.

4. While the false reason given in the application to SLF suggests concealment, it does not prove dishonesty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Consequently, dishonesty not being proven, the conviction is set aside, and an acquittal is recorded.  
THE
JUDGEMENT
The appellant was convicted on the charge of criminal breach of trust as an agent and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. 
He appealed against both conviction and sentence.

The appellant had no right to use the money for his own purposes.

THANKS FOR WATCHING
"Justice is our compass, integrity our path—together, we uphold the law and shape a fairer tomorrow."

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT LAC4443 (ANG TECK HWA V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

Copy this link to share with friends and colleagues:

WELCOME TO POWTOON!