FACULTY OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW 2
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
STUDENTS DETAILS:
1.
2.
3.
4.

FAUZIAH HANIM BINTI ABUHAN (2011964999)

NURHAYATI BINTI MAMAT @ NGAH (2011561155)
MUHAMMAD MUSHRIN BIN ESA (2011739935)
FADZILAH BINTI NASIR (2011737531)

CRIMINAL LAW II - LAW 555

GROUP ASSIGNMENT (PLK)
Date
Submission Date

:
:

21 December 2014
26 December 2014 (Friday)

Ben met Pawang, a traditional medicine practitioner, who claims to have King
Midas touch in that Pawang may turns anything he touched into money. Pawang
told Ben that he had to pay RM10,000 for the said process, in return he will get
RM1 million. Although Ben had no money to do so, he nonetheless agreed to it.
Ben told Pawang that he will pay the former in 3 days time.
The next day, Ben who worked as a bank officer took RM10,000 from the vault
belonging to the bank. Ben then paid the money to Pawang. Pawang gave Ben a
chest box, as well as a mantra to be recited and advised him that that it should
only be opened in a weeks time. After a week, Ben opened the chest box only to
find a note saying thank you.
Meanwhile, Boboi, Pawangs son is an odd-job worker. One day, Boboi entered
into My-Fon2U, a shop selling hand phones pretending as a buyer. While Tom,
the shop owner was busy attending to another customer, Boboi took 5 units of
brand new Iphone 6. He then fled the scene in less than a minute. As he left in
such a haste, Boboi dropped 2 hand phones on the floor outside the shop.
Bibik, a cleaner while sweeping the floor witnessed the incident. She picked them
up and later sold one of the hand phones to her friend, Joko for RM200. Joko knew
the value is RM2,000 but he nonetheless purchased it as he thought it is a good
deal not to be missed.
In the meantime, Tom realized about Bobois misdeeds. Tom then chased after
Boboi. Tom managed to get hold of Boboi. To angry, Tom hit Boboi several times.
Boboi who was a suffering from epilepsy succumbed into a fit. Boboi had to be
admitted into a hospital for 25 days and had now suffered from a memory loss
due to the several episodes of fits.
Evaluate the liability of Pawang, Ben, Tom, Bibik and Joko.
(30
marks)
Instructions to the students :
1.

This is a group assignment.

2.

Copying will not be tolerated. The offenders will automatically be awarded a mark
of zero. Hence, PLEASE REFRAIN yourself from sharing your answer with another
group.

3.

As stated above, the assignment must be submitted on 26 December 2014, Friday,

by 4.00 p.m. at the (Akademik Dua) Faculty of Law Office, Level 4. Marks will be
deducted for late submission.

4.
a
b
c

FORMAT :

Font
Font size
Line spacing
d)

: Arial
: 12
: Single
Page

: Not more than 4 pages (Page 5 onwards will not be marked)

Good Luck and have fun with your assignment.

-Mummy-

END OF QUESTION PAPER

First Issue
Pawang is the accused and Ben is the victim. Then, issue is whether Pawang was
liable for cheating as defined under Section 415 of Penal Code and punishable under 420 of
Penal Code if he is charged.
Elements of cheating were stated in Mohd Jailani b Saliman v PP to be:
1. Deception of any person,
2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person delivering any property to any person
or to consent that any person shall retain any property or
3. intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely
to cause damage or harm to that person or body, mind, reputation or property.
In determining whether Pawangs act fall within the element of cheating, we have to prove
that he was intentionally dishonest and has induced the person to deliver the property or to
consent that any person retains any property.
In the case of Rex v. Lim Cheng Soo, the complainant agreed to purchase one thousand
forged $1 notes for the price of $388. The money was paid and the bundle of notes was
given. The bundle contained genuine notes on the top, however the bottom and the middle
part was only blank papers. On being charged for cheating, the accused was acquitted. But
on appeal, the court held that a prosecution would lie for cheating even if the transaction to
purchase the forged notes was an offence. The appeal was allowed.
In this situation, Pawang, who claimed to have King Midas touch, said that he may turn
anything he touched into money. Here Pawang had given a false and dishonest statement
which then caused Ben to be deceit with his claim that he may turn anything he touched into
money. When Ben believed his words and paid him RM10,000.00 as he was told for the said
process, Pawangs act was constituted as cheating. This is because he intentionally inducing
Ben to pay the money when Ben would not do as what he said if he were not so deceived.
Ben actually did what he has been told to do which includes doing reciting the mantra and
only realized he was being fraud after a week when he open back the chest box only to find a
note saying thank you. Ben, a bank officer, took the money from the bank where he works,
which means he has committed a criminal breach of trust by using his fiduciary position.
Applying the case law above to the issue given, even if the way Ben got the money to enter
the transaction was by way a criminal offence itself, the court will still held Pawang is still
liable for cheating Ben.
Therefore, as a conclusion, Pawang has fulfilled all elements on cheating and is liable for
cheating as provided under Section 415 and can be punished under Section 420 of Penal
Code since Ben already pay him the money.

Second Issue

For the second issue is whether Ben is liable for criminal breach of trust as defined under
Section 405 of Penal Code and punishable under Section 406 of Penal Code if he is
charged.
Section 405 can be viewed in the following perspective:
1. Being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property either
solely or jointly with any other person;

2. Dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use that property, or dishonestly

used or disposed of that property
3. the dishonest used or disposal of the property was in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he made touching the discharge of trust or
4. Willfully suffers any other person so to do
In R v Tan Ah Seng, the accused had received $40 for the purpose of renting a house
to be used by some prostitutes. He misappropriated the money. It was held that the definition
of in any manner entrustred was wide enough to cover money entrustred to a person even if
it had been entrusted to him for an illegal purpose.
In the issue given, Ben is a bank officer who has fiduciary position in the bank. He
used his entrusted dominion position to dishonestly misappropriated RM10,000 which is the
property of the bank as his payment to Pawang, which was for his personal fraudulent
transaction. He has intentionally make the bank suffer for the money lost. Applying the above
case to the situation given, Ben is definitely held liable for misappropriated the money even
he has been deceit by Pawang by using the money entrusted to him for an illegal purpose.
Therefore, as a conclusion, Ben has fulfilled all elements on criminal breach of trust and is
liable under Section 405 and can be punished under Section 406 of Penal Code.

Third Issue

For the third issue is whether Boboi is liable for theft as defined under Section 378 of
Penal Code and punishable under Section 380 of Penal Code if he is charged. By the
virtue of Section 380 of the Penal Code whoever commits theft in any building shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Section 378 of the Penal Code defines theft as whoever intending to take dishonestly
any movable property of of the possession of any person without that persons consent is
said to commit theft. Dishonestly is defined in Section 24 of Penal Code. Section 24 states it
is doing anything with intent to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain. In section 23,
wrongful loss or gain means to gain by unlawful means of property and a person is said to
lose wrongfully when he is wrongfully kept out of any property. Illegally is the test of
dishonesty.
In Ramiah v PP, the accused broke into the victims house and removed a trunk.
They were charged with house breaking and theft. The accused argued that the victim owed
them some money and their intention was only to keep the trunk for a few days until the debt
was repaid. It was held that by removing the other persons property solely to compel the
debtor to pay the debt is not theft. However, in this case the accused did not sat they
believed in good faith that it was alright to take another persons property as security for debt
owed to them. Hence, the accused was held had committed theft.
In the third issue given, Boboi was dishonestly pretending to be a buyer of an Iphone
6. He then took 5 units of Iphone 6 which are movable property from the possession of Tom,
the shop owner when he was busy attending another customer. Bobois action by escaping
with the Iphone 6 in less than a minute obviously showed his intention in commiting theft.
Boboi has caused wrongful loss to Tom by taking away the 5 units of Iphone 6 without

making any payment. Applying the above case to the situation given, Boboi too did not in
good faith take another persons property, therefore he is liable in committing theft.
Therefore, as a conclusion, Boboi has fulfilled all elements on theft and is liable for the
offence as provided under Section 378 and can be punished under Section 380 of Penal
Code since Ben already pay him the money.

Fourth Issue

The parties involve are Bibik and Joko. Then, the issue here is whether Bibik can be
liable for criminal misappropriation of property as defined under section 403 of the penal
code and punishable under the same section for selling the Iphone 6 she found which
belonging to Tom and whether Joko can be liable for offence of receiving stolen property as
defined under section 411 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the
act committed.
Section 403 defines criminal misappropriation of property as whoever (1) dishonestly
misappropriates or (2) convert to his own use or (3) cause any other person to dispose of
any property shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months and not
more than 5 years with whipping and shall also be liable to fine.
In order to determine the criminal liability of Bibik, he must misappropriate the
property of another person or convert to his own use or cause any other person to
dispose of any property.
The act of the accuser fall into the offence of criminal misappropriation of property
there is misappropriation of property of another person. According to illustration (e) to section
403, A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers
that it belongs to Z and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of this offence. In Sohan Lal
v Emperor, it was stated that misappropriate means to set apart for or assign to the wrong
person or a wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined under
section 24 as where doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful loss and wrongful
gain under section 23, is gain by unlawful means of property and person is said loss
wrongfully when he is wrongfully kept out of any property.
In addition, the act of the accuser fall into the offence of criminal misappropriation of
property if there is a conversion of property to one own use. Conversion to ones own used
means to appropriate and uses another property without right as if it is ones own. Illustration
(d) of section 403 states that A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse
with the intention of restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has
committed an offence under this section. This can be seen in the case of Darugappa as the
accused must not merely retain the property to the physical exclusion of the real owner but
also direct to his own use.
In order to determine the criminal liability of Joko, the elements of this offence
must be established.
Firstly, the property concerned must be stolen property. Section 410 of the Penal
Code outline stolen property as any property that had transferred through by theft, extortion,
robbery, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is a stolen property but if the
property comes into the possession of a legally entitled person thus the property ceases to
be stolen property. However, the court in the case of Goh Khiok Phiong v R, stated that if
the property is not obtained by any of the offences stated in section 410, or the absence of
evidence that the property is stolen, the property would not be stolen property.

Secondly, the accused must know or has reason to believe that the property is
stolen. In the case of Samad Khamis, the oil was sold at very cheap price, the court held
then the accused had a reason to believe that it was stolen as the price were unreasonable.
Applying to the issue above, Bibik has witnessed the the incident of the stealing
property by Boboi therefore kept the Iphone 6 that she picked up from the floor. Later she
sold the Iphone 6 to Joko. This proves that there is a conversion of property to one own
used. Thus, Bibik also act dishonestly. Joko beforehand knew the phone is stolen property
and without second thought bought the phone from Bibik. Joko can be said buying stolen
property as he knew nature of the property such as the original price. The elements stated
established by Joko. It is safe to say Joko is liable for the offence of receiving stolen property.
In conclusion, Bibik may be held liable for offence of criminal misappropriation of
property as defined under section 403 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same
section while Joko may be held liable for offence of receiving stolen property as defined
under section 411 of the Penal Code and punishable under the same section for the act
committed.
Fifth Issue
The parties involve are Tom, the accused and Boboi, the victim. The issue here is
whether Tom can be held liable for hurt as defined under Section 322 of the Penal code for
punching Boboi and punishable under Section 325 of the same code.
Section 322 defines voluntarily causing grievous hurt as an act done with the intention of
causing grievous hurt to another person or with knowledge that he is likely to cause grievous
hurt the person and the grievous hurt caused is said to be voluntarily.
In determining whether Tom can be held liable for causing grievous hurt, firstly must put
attention on whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. In the case of PP v Sng
Siew Ngoh, it was provided that for an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, it is
necessary to show:
I.

The hurt was caused voluntarily;

II.

The accused intended or knew he was likely to cause grievous hurt; and

III.

The hurt caused was grievous hurt.

For the first element, the offender must voluntarily commit the act. Secondly, the accused
must intended or knew he was likely to cause to cause grievous hurt.
In the case of PP v Mahfar bin Sairan, it was held that where an action lacked
intention or knowledge, it also lacks the essential element of voluntary.
Then, lastly hurt becomes grievous hurt when hurt takes one of the forms stated in section
320 of the Penal Code.
By looking at the fact of the case, Tom has acted recklessly and out of anger hit Boboi
which caused grievous hurt to him. He suffered epilepsy, admitted for 25 days in the hospital
and loss memory due to the effect of the hitting. Thus, it can be said that Tom has fulfilled the
elements define under section 322 of the Penal Code.
In conclusion, Tom can be held liable for causing grievous hurt towards Boboi under
Section 322 of the Penal Code and punishable under section 325 of the same code.