Nurul Hidayah binti Hamzah

2020471264
LWB04B
Assoc Prof Dr Zaiton Hamin

PART A

1. B
2. B
3. E
4. D
5. E
6. E
7. D
8. D
9. D
10. B

PART B

1.
1) Whether Jelita could be criminally liable under Section 415 of the Penal Code for
deceiving and inducing to pay the money to the Custom Office designated ’s bank account?

1) Whether Teepoo and Jelita could be liable under section 416 for cheating by personation
by imposing as a male teacher and a customs officer respectively?

2) Whether Teepoo could be liable under section 424 for assisting concealment of property
for the money paid to the Customs Office by means of deception?

2.
The missing facts of Teepo’s personal profile would be his full name, nationality, home
address, ID number, race and religion, marital status, and his phone number and email.

3.
The relevant missing facts surrounding the crime would be the account number of Jelita and
Canteek, the bank used for the transaction, the exact time the transfer of the money was made
and the the devices used by the parties in communicating with each other for example a
laptop or mobile phone.

4. For the first issue which is whether Jelita could be criminally liable under Section 415 of
the Penal Code for deceiving and inducing to pay the money to the Custom Office designated
bank account?
The victim of this case would be Canteek, known facts regarding the victim are her age,
gender and her occupation as a teacher nevertheless, her full name, IC number, home address
and marital status is silent. For the accused of this case are Teepoo which we know only know
his age and employment background which is unemployed, his full name, IC number, home
address is not stated. And for the second accused, Jelita there is no personal or employment
information stated in the facts of the case.

Under Section 415, Firstly, for the actus reus the Accused must have deceived the victim.
Deceive or deception is not defined in the Penal Code nevertheless, generally deceiving
means making false representation to another person by words or conduct and the maker
knows such words or conduct are untrue.

Secondly, the accused must induce the victim to deliver the property to the victim to consent
to retain the victim's property. Following PP v Krishnan (1948), police traffic took money
from applicants of driving licenses promising to procure the licenses without them undergoing
driving tests. The accused was then guilty under Section 415 as fraud is committed if any
advantage is expected to the person who causes the deception.

Thirdly, the accused induces and deceives the victim to do something or omit to do something
which is likely to cause harm to the victim. Whereby the victim must have acted under
influence of deceit and the harm to the victim must be directly connected to the deception,
caused to the victim and not to anybody else. Section 44 provides that harm illegally caused
by injury can be to body, mind, reputation and property.

For the mens rea, the accused first is fraudulent in inducing the victim to deliver property to
anybody. Secondly, the accused has dishonest intention as referring to Section 23 and 24 of
the Penal Code in inducing the victim to deliver property to anybody in order to cause
wrongful gain made by the accused or wrongful loss to the victim. And lastly, the accused is
intentional

After laying out the actus reus and mens rea, deception towards the victim must be identified
and proved following the case of Mohd Kasdi v PP (1969). Whereby three ingredients must
be proved which are firstly the accused had practiced deception on the victim, secondly the
accused was dishonest and the victim was induced to part with his money.

Now, looking into the present case, on 30 June 2021, a communication took place from Jelita
to Canteek, by an unstated form of communication. Here, the deception may happen on that
particular date through their communication because apparently that deception has the effect
of the Canteek as she was anticipating receiving the gift from Teepoo as he said on June 28.
Referring to case PP v Mohd Jalani Saliman (1997), the deception by the accused is made
to generate inducement in the victim’s mind. It may be conducted through words or conduct
and it will induce the victim to believe something which is false. In the present case, generate
inducement to deliver property to him is when Jelita contacted Canteek that she must pay
RM15000 to a bank account designated by the Customs Office before collecting the parcel
from France. Thus, the actus reus present.

For mens rea, dishonest intention began from two days after 28th June when Jelita contacted
Canteek, posing as a customs officer notifying her that she must pay RM15000 to a bank
account designated by the Customs Office before collecting the parcel from France.Jelita in
communicating Canteek to transfer the money without intending to provide the gift, it
materialized Jelita’s dishonest intention as Jelita knew that it was false in order to cause
wrongful gain.

To conclude, Jelita may be criminally liable for simple cheating under section 415 for
deceiving and inducing Canteek to pay the money to the Custom Office designated bank
account and may be liable under Section 417 for imprisonment up to 5 years or fine or both.

For the second issue on whether Teepoo and Jelita could be liable under section 416 for
cheating by personation by imposing as a male teacher and a customs officer respectively?

Cheating by personation is stated under Section 416, when the accused pretends to be
someone else or knowingly substituting one person for another or representing that he or
someone else is a person other than who he really is.

Here, both Jelita and Teepoo have impersonated someone they are not as a customs officer
and a male teacher from France. This is supported by the case of R v Hague (1864), it was
held that impersonate means to be presented to be a particular person. Therefore, both of
them are liable under Section 416 for cheating by personation and may be punished under
Section 419 under the Penal Code for a maximum 7 years jail sentence or fine or both.

The third issue is whether Teepoo could be liable under section 424 for assisting
concealment of property for the money paid to the Customs Office by means of deception?

Under Section 424, the actus reus required is the accused conceals or removes any
property, the accused assists in the concealment or removal of property, the accused releases
any demand or claim to which he is entitled or the property belongs to himself or another
person. And for the mens rea, there must be dishonest or fraudulent intention and dishonest
intention.

Actus reus is proven when Teepoo conceals the money of Canteek when he did not contact
Canteek after she transferred the money for the gift. Meanwhile mens rea is also proven when
he committed it with a fraudulent intention as he willingly is involved in the scam. Hence,
Teepoo may be liable under section 424 for fraudulent concealment of property for assisting
Jelita in obtaining Canteek’s money by deception. Therefore, he satisfies the requirement laid
out in Section 424. This is similar to the case of In PP v Rose Suraya Ideris [2017], Rose, an
unemployed woman, was charged and convicted under section 424 of the Penal Code for
concealing RM14,000 belonging to a scam victim in her bank account in multiple transactions
on 8 September 2017. The victim earlier befriended a scammer who fraudulently
represented himself as a male person from the United Kingdom and promised to give her a
parcel gift from his country. Therefore, Based on the same section, he may be punished with
an imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine or both.