The High Court recently dismissed an appeal made by a Malaysian national, found guilty of cheating charges and seeking to contest the court’s findings and a reduction in sentence.
Chieu Vun Thian, represented by lawyer Balendran Balasingam of Messrs Fathan and Co throughout the trial and in the appeal, was sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ jail by the Magistrate’s Court after he was found guilty of cheating an oil and gas company out of BND154,000.
The managing director of a hardware company had conspired with a then-employee of the oil and gas company to deceive the principal into believing that it required the purchase of 22 sets of tools and a roller cabinet from the defendant’s company.
The oil and gas company was found to have been dishonestly-induced to approve the BND154,000 purchase.
In the High Court before Judicial Commissioner Haji Abdullah Soefri bin Pehin Orang Kaya Saiful Mulok Dato Seri Paduka Haji Abidin, the applicants contested the Magistrate’s finding in convicting him of deception and inducing the oil and gas company.
The applicants also said that the Magistrate had failed to establish evidence leading up to the conviction on dishonest supply of the tools to the oil and gas company.
The applicant claims that the Magistrate “wrongly” relied on evidence in establishing the alleged conspiracy to commit cheating by deception, and depending on the prosecution’s submission for sentencing as well as failing to give adequate weight to ‘extenuating circumstances’ in the case.
In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hajah Suriana binti Haji Radin said the appellant had failed to demonstrate how the Magistrate made errors in concluding that the appellant had deceived the oil and gas company.
The respondent also detailed the technicalities in the evidence leading to the Magistrate’s finding that the appellant had induced the principal into believing that the purchase was required.
DPP Hajah Suriana also backed the Magistrate on establishing dishonesty during the trial.
“The appellant’s claim that he had incurred extra costs in supplying the actual goods is misleading as the appellant had already factored in an 83-per-cent profit,” the respondent added.
Judicial Commissioner Haji Abdullah Soefri held that it is trite law that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.
The High Court also reminded parties that the Magistrate had the opportunity of observing witnesses to assess their veracity and reliability.
This led the judicial commissioner to dismiss the application against conviction.
His dismissal of the appeal against sentence was based on his findings that the Magistrate had correctly made the decision after taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the case.
The High Court made the decision on August 26, ordering the jail term to take effect immediately, after the applicant had been given a stay of execution pending appeal. – Fadley Faisal
