WA-22NCC-264-06/2022 Kand.

749
25/09/2024 15:43:58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR

IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
SUIT NO.: WA-22NCC-264-06/2022

BETWEEN

BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA

BERHAD
(REGISTRATION NO.: 197301003074
(16562-K)) ...PLAINTIFF

AND

1. SIDQI AHMAD SAID BIN AHMAD

(NRIC NO.: 710718-02-5183)
2. SHAILEN A/L POPATLAL
(NRIC NO.: 680603-05-5265)
3. WAN ALIAS BIN WAN NGAH
(NRIC NO.: 720807-11-5163)
4. ROSLINA BINTI IBRAHIM (NRIC NO.:
640723-05-5896)
5. ABDUL WAHID BIN ABDUL GHANI
(NRIC NO.: 611203-08-5757)
6. MOHD RADZI BIN MOHAMED
(NRIC NO.: 560710-08-5973)
7. MUHAMMAD SHAZHAKIM BIN
SHAZARUL HISHAM
(NRIC NO.: 910501-14-5527)
8. SHAZA ARINA BINTI SHAZARUL
HISHAM
(NRIC NO.: 950212-14-6124)
9. MUSTAFA ALI ZAMINALI SAYED
(PASSPORT NO.: L3459903)
10. WONG CHEE KEONG
(NRIC NO.: 530409-08-5395)

1
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 11. ABD. HADI BIN ABD. MAJID
(NRIC NO.: 501001-04-5493)
12. TUNKU MAZLINA BINTI TUNKU ABD
AZIZ
(NRIC NO.: 740919-05-5124)
13. RANJEET SINGH SIDHU
(NRIC NO.: 700201-03-5371)
14. NOORUSA’ADAH BINTI OTHMAN
(NRIC NO.: 690418-10-5274)
15. PANEAGLE HOLDINGS BERHAD
(COMPANY NO.: 199601028840
(401192-M))
16. PANEAGLE SDN. BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 199401021754
(307433-W))
17. VCB INVESTMENT BERHAD
(COMPANY NO.: 201001024441
(908237-M))
18. OPEN FIBRE SDN. BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 200701025088
(783109-M))
19. PRIMAWIN LIMITED (COMPANY NO.:
1017308)
20. CHINA FINANCE LIMITED
(COMPANY NO.: 38227)
21. HADRON EQUITIES LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARAB
EMIRATES CAPITAL LIMITED)
(COMPANY NO.: 1486558)
22. ORIENT TELECOMS SDN. BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 201801000440
(1262453-T))
23. SILVER RIDGE HOLDINGS BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 200401029277
(667785-W))
24. BVS TRINITY SDN. BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 199901017411

2
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 (492311-W))
25. VCB MALAYSIA BHD.
(COMPANY NO.: 199901018565
(493465-A))
26. ZAVARCO PLC
(ENGLAND AND WALES COMPANY
NO.: 07687158)
27. SILVER RIDGE SDN BHD
(COMPANY NO.: 199201020641
(252145-U))
28. IZLIN BINTI ISMAIL
(NRIC NO.: 720526-02-5030)
(as joint administrators of the estate
of MOHD ZAFER MOHD HASHIM
(NRIC NO.: 720704-71-5115))
29. MUHAMMAD RADZI BIN MOHD
ZAFER
(NRIC NO.: 970814-87-5015)
(as joint administrators of the estate
of MOHD ZAFER MOHD HASHIM
(NRIC NO.: 720704-71-5115))
30. ZAKARIA BIN SAAD
(NRIC NO.: 570818-07-5565) ...DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT

[1] This judgment concerns a complex case involving

allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and misappropriation of
funds related to a substantial loan granted for a major
infrastructure project. The plaintiff, a financial institution,
claims that the loan, intended to finance the development of
a coastal fiber optic network, was fraudulently obtained and
subsequently misused by multiple defendants through a
sophisticated scheme. At the heart of the dispute are

3
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 contentions of bribery, breach of fiduciary duties, and the
unlawful diversion of funds to various corporate entities and
individuals. The case involves numerous defendants,
including corporate bodies and individuals, who are alleged
to have played various roles in the fraudulent activities. The
plaintiff seeks to recover significant sums through several
legal actions, including applications for Mareva Injunctions
to freeze the assets of various defendants. This judgment
addresses multiple applications, including requests for
Mareva Injunctions, attempts to set aside previously granted
ex parte orders, and the court's assessment of whether
there exists a good arguable case and a real risk of asset
dissipation for each defendant. The matter is further
complicated by its international scope, with allegations of
funds being transferred across multiple jurisdictions, and the
significant time that has elapsed since the initial loan
disbursement.

Background facts

[2] The Plaintiff, Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad, granted

a term loan facility of RM400 million (“Loan”) to Aries
Telecoms (M) Berhad (“Aries”) on 23.5.2012. The purpose
of the Loan was to partly finance the development of a
coastal network consisting of a fiber optic network around
Peninsular Malaysia (“the Project”).

[3] On 28.6.2012, the Plaintiff and Aries entered into a Facility

Agreement for the Loan. The Loan was secured by a fixed

4
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 and floating debenture over all assets of Aries, a corporate
guarantee by Zavarco Berhad dated 28.6.2012, and a
personal guarantee by Zulisman bin Zainal Abidin dated
17.4.2017.

[4] A sum of RM400 million (“the Loan Sum”) was disbursed to

Aries in two tranches - RM200 million on 2.7.2012 and
RM200 million on 15.11.2013. The disbursements were
approved by the Plaintiff's officers at the time, including
Dato' Zafer Mohd Hashim (“Zafer”) who was then the
President and Group Managing Director of the Plaintiff.

[5] On 25.9.2012, the Plaintiff appointed the 27th Defendant,

Silver Ridge Sdn Bhd (“Silver Ridge”), as the Independent
Checking Engineer (“ICE”) for the Project. Silver Ridge
submitted several progress reports to the Plaintiff between
February 2013 and November 2013 regarding the status of
the Project.

[6] On 26.9.2013, the Plaintiff conducted a site visit related to

the Project. The Plaintiff representatives concluded that the
work progress for entire infrastructure has been completed
and currently under intense testing for stable connectivity.

[7] On 10.7.2018, the Plaintiff issued a notice of default to Aries

demanding repayment of RM451,266,763.13 towards the
Loan. On 9.5.2019, the Plaintiff obtained summary
judgment against Aries for this amount in a separate legal

5
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 action in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCC-
313-07/2018 (“Suit 313”).

[8] On 4.7.2019, the Plaintiff appointed a Receiver and

Manager (“the R&M”) over the assets and undertakings of
Aries pursuant to the debenture. The R&M subsequently
reported discovering certain irregularities relating to the
Loan upon investigation.

[9] On 15.6.2022, the Plaintiff initiated the present legal action

against Zafer who was named as the 1st Defendant
together with 26 other Defendants, alleging various
wrongdoings including fraud, conspiracy, bribery, and
breach of duties in relation to the Loan to Aries. The Plaintiff
sought worldwide Mareva Injunctions via a Notice of
Application in Enclosure 2 against Zafer (who was then
named as the 1st Defendant), the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th,
18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, and
27th Defendants.

[10] On 4.7.2022, the High Court granted ex parte Mareva

Injunction orders (“the Ex Parte Injunction Order”) against
Zafer (the 1st Defendant then), the 2nd, 4th to 15th, and
19th to 27th Defendants in Enclosure 35.

[11] Enclosure 2 was amended by order of this court on

4.7.2022 and the Mareva Injunction application continues

6
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 against the said defendants in Enclosure 106, the Amended
Notice of Application.

[12] Zafer passed away on 20.7.2022 and following his death,

on 26.9.2022, his daughter, Izlin binti Ismail (“Izlin”) and his
son, Muhammad Radzi bin Mohd Zafer (“Radzi Zafer”),
were appointed as joint administrators of Zafer's estate.
Legal proceedings against Zafer’s estate are continuing,
with the joint administrators now representing his interests
in the case and the Plaintiff seeks relief against Zafer's
estate.

[13] In October 2022, the Plaintiff alleges it discovered the

involvement of Sidqi Ahmad Said bin Ahmad (“Sidqi”)
through an affidavit filed by Noorusa'adah binti Othman
(“Adah”), the 14th Defendant, in the course of the
proceedings. It was alleged in the affidavit that Sidqi
received a bribe of approximately RM8 million (or
alternatively RM5.5 million) on behalf of Zafer through a
Singapore bank account of a company he controlled.

[14] On 11.11.2022, the Plaintiff filed an application to amend its

Amended Writ and Statement of Claim to add Sidqi (and
replace Zafer) as the 1st Defendant and add Izlin and Radzi
Zafer as the 28th and 29th Defendants, the joint
administrators of Zafer’s estate, which was allowed on
13.12.2022. The amendment was also to add Zakaria bin
Saad, the 30th Defendant, based on alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, trust, and care in his role as Senior Vice

7
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 President I and Head of Business Banking I of the Plaintiff.
Specifically, he is alleged to have improperly waived loan
conditions, facilitated the appointment of an unregistered
independent checking engineer, and being involved in a
fraudulent scheme that resulted in significant financial
losses for the Plaintiff. On 3.1.2023, the Plaintiff filed its Re-
Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim.

[15] Sidqi entered his appearance on 7.2.2023 and on 7.3.2023,

the Plaintiff filed an application (Enc 349) for a worldwide
Mareva Injunction against Sidqi.

[16] The present proceedings involve the Plaintiff's application

for Mareva Injunctions against various defendants, as well
as applications by several defendants to set aside or vary
the ex parte Mareva orders previously granted. The
defendants have raised various objections to the Plaintiff's
applications, including allegations of delay, lack of good
arguable case, and absence of risk of dissipation of assets.

Abbreviations and references

[17] In this judgment, I will use the following references for each
defendant when referred to individually:

Sidqi Ahmad Said bin “Sidqi”

Ahmad (1st Defendant)

8
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Shailen a/l Popatlal (2nd “Shailen”
Defendant)
Wan Alias bin Wan Ngah “Wan Alias”
(3rd Defendant)
Roslina binti Ibrahim (4th “Roslina”
Defendant)
Abdul Wahid bin Abdul “Abdul Wahid”
Ghani (5th Defendant)
Mohd Radzi bin Mohamed “Mohd Radzi”
(6th Defendant)
Muhammad Shazhakim bin “Shazhakim”
Shasarul Hisham (7th
Defendant)
Shasa Arina binti Shasarul “Shasa”
Hisham (8th Defendant)
Mustafa Ali Zaminali Sayed “Mustafa Ali”
(9th Defendant)
Wong Chee Keong (10th “Wong”
Defendant)
Abd. Hadi bin Abd. Majid “Abd. Hadi”
(11th Defendant)
Tunku Mazlina binti Tunku “Tunku Mazlina”
Abd Asis (12th Defendant)
Ranjeet Singh Sidhu (13th “Ranjeet”
Defendant)
Noorusa'adah binti Othman “Adah”
(14th Defendant)

9
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Paneagle Holdings Berhad “Paneagle Holdings”
(15th Defendant)
Paneagle Sdn. Bhd. (16th “Paneagle”
Defendant)
VCB Investment Berhad “VCB Investment”
(17th Defendant)
Open Fibre Sdn. Bhd. (18th “Open Fibre”
Defendant)
Primawin Limited (19th “Primawin”
Defendant)
China Finance Limited (20th “China Finance”
Defendant)
Hadron Equities Limited “Hadron Equities”
(formerly known as Arab
Emirates Capital Limited)
(21st Defendant)
Orient Telecoms Sdn. Bhd. “Orient Telecoms”
(22nd Defendant)
Silver Ridge Holdings Bhd. “Silver Ridge Holdings”
(23rd Defendant)
BVS Trinity Sdn. Bhd. (24th “BVS Trinity”
Defendant)
VCB Malaysia Bhd. (25th “VCB Malaysia”
Defendant)
Zavarco PLC (26th “Zavarco PLC”
Defendant)
Silver Ridge Sdn Bhd (27th “Silver Ridge”
Defendant)

10
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Izlin binti Ismail (28th “Izlin”
Defendant)
Muhammad Radzi bin Mohd “Radzi Zafer”
Zafer (29th Defendant)
Zakari bin Saad (30th “Zakaria”
Defendant

The Plaintiff’s pleaded case

[18] In summary, the Plaintiff alleges that it was defrauded of

approximately RM564,991,617.25 through a complex and
sophisticated scheme involving numerous individual and
corporate defendants (“the Alleged Fraud Scheme”). The
alleged fraud centres around the Loan of RM400 million
granted by the Plaintiff for the purpose of partly financing
the development the Project.

[19] The Plaintiff alleges that the Loan was obtained fraudulently
through a series of misrepresentations about Aries' financial
status, capabilities, and intended use of the funds. The key
allegations include:

a) Aries misrepresented its paid-up capital as RM501

million when applying for the Loan. The Plaintiff
alleges that RM396 million of this purported capital
was never actually injected into the company. This
misrepresentation had a substantial impact on the
approval of the Loan.

11
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 b) The original turnkey contractor for the Project,
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”), China,
was unilaterally replaced with Paneagle Holdings,
without the Plaintiff's full knowledge, consent, or
approval. This replacement was allegedly done to
facilitate the siphoning of funds.

c) The ICE for the Project, Silver Ridge, was improperly

appointed through manipulation of the evaluation
process. The Plaintiff alleges that Silver Ridge failed
to properly verify work done on the Project and
issued reports containing substantial
misrepresentations.

d) Large portions of the Loan funds, approximately

RM499 million, were allegedly siphoned off to
Paneagle Holdings rather than being used for the
intended project. Additional funds were transferred to
other related companies such as BVS Trinity, VCB
Malaysia and Primawin.

e) Zafer, the Plaintiff's then-President and Group

Managing Director, allegedly received bribes of
approximately RM8 million to approve the Loan
disbursements. This bribe was allegedly paid through
intermediaries, including Adah.

f) When the Plaintiff began recovery efforts, Aries

allegedly transferred its assets and business to a

12
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 new company, Orient Telecoms, to avoid repayment
of the Loan.

[20] The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in various

unlawful acts including fraud, conspiracy to defraud, breach
of fiduciary duties, fraudulent breach of trust, negligence,
dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt of
misappropriated funds. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the full
loan amount plus interest from the various defendants
jointly and severally, as well as exemplary and aggravated
damages.

[21] The case involves complex corporate structures and

numerous individual defendants alleged to have played
roles in orchestrating or benefiting from the Alleged Fraud
Scheme. The Plaintiff argues that the corporate veils of
various entities should be pierced to hold individual
defendants liable for the fraud.

[22] The Plaintiff alleges that Shailen was the shadow director of
Aries and instrumental in the Alleged Fraud Scheme.
Similarly, Roslina is alleged to have been the controlling
mind of several key companies involved in the fraud.

[23] The Plaintiff further alleges that the appointment of Silver

Ridge as the ICE was improper, as the company was not on
the Plaintiff's registered panel and had undeclared conflicts
of interest with Aries. The Plaintiff claims that Silver Ridge’s

13
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 verification reports contained substantial misrepresentations
about the progress of the Project.

[24] The Plaintiff seeks a wide range of reliefs against the

various defendants, both individually and collectively. In
detail, the reliefs sought include:

a) Declarations:

i) That Zafer breached his fiduciary duty, trust,

duty of care, skill and diligence, duty of fidelity
and duty of trust and confidence towards the
Plaintiff.

ii) That all profits or benefits obtained by the

defendants through the bribery or fraud are
held on constructive trust for the Plaintiff.

iii) That the Plaintiff is entitled to trace the sum of

RM564,991,617.25 into any assets or
properties held by the defendants.

iv) That the sum of RM564,991,617.25 is held on

Quistclose trust by various defendants.

v) That the corporate veil should be lifted for

various corporate defendants to hold
individual directors and shareholders liable.

14
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 b) Monetary Judgments:

i) RM564,991,617.25 for loss and damage

against all defendants jointly and severally.

ii) RM8,000,000 against Zafer's estate as

monies had and received (the alleged bribe
amount).

iii) Various specific amounts against different

defendants for monies had and received,
corresponding to amounts allegedly siphoned
off.

c) Accounts of profits from various defendants for any

profits or benefits procured through Aries or the
Project.

d) Exemplary damages and aggravated damages to be

assessed by the court.

e) Pre-judgment interest at 6.15% per annum from the

date the sums became due until the date of
judgment.

f) Post-judgment interest at 5% per annum from the

date of judgment until full realisation.

g) Costs on an indemnity basis.

15
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 h) Similar declarations, judgments, and accounts of
profits are sought against various corporate
defendants and their directors/shareholders,
including Paneagle Holdings, Orient Telecoms, Silver
Ridge Holdings, BVS Trinity, Zavarco PLC, Open
Fibre and VCB Investment.

i) Similar declarations, judgments, and accounts of

profits are sought against key individual defendants
such as Shailen, Roslina and others alleged to have
been involved in the fraud.

ENCLOSURE 106

The Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 106

[25] In Enclosure 106, the Plaintiff applied for an injunction and

other relief against multiple defendants as specified in the
Draft Order in Annexure A. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction
to prevent the defendants from removing their assets from
Malaysia or disposing of them, both domestically and
internationally, up to certain amounts specified in Schedule
A. Additionally, the Plaintiff requests that the defendants
disclose information about their worldwide assets and
provide affidavits accounting for the sums listed in the same
schedule. Certain exceptions are allowed for living and legal
expenses, with individuals permitted up to RM10,000 per
month and corporate entities up to RM20,000. This order is

16
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 sought to remain in place until the resolution of the Plaintiff’s
claims or further order by the court.

[26] The Plaintiff had previously obtained the Ex Parte Injunction

Order on 4.7.2022 in Enclosure 35, which granted similar
relief to what is now being requested. The terms of the prior
Ex Parte Injunction Order mirror the current application,
suggesting that the Plaintiff is now seeking to extend or
renew the previously granted injunction in light of ongoing
concerns regarding the dissipation of the defendants'
assets. The continuation of this relief is critical to prevent
the potential dissipation of assets while the main suit is
being adjudicated.

[27] The Plaintiff’s application is based on grounds that centre

on the granting of a RM400,000,000 term loan facility to
Aries, which subsequent investigations revealed was
marred by irregularities. The Plaintiff alleges that Zafer, as
the former President and Group Managing Director of the
Bank, received RM8,000,000 in bribes to approve the
disbursement of this loan. The Plaintiff further asserts that
Zafer, along with the 2nd to 27th Defendants, dishonestly
assisted in breaching fiduciary duties and some of them
knowingly received funds originating from the Plaintiff.
Citing a real risk of asset dissipation due to the extent of the
alleged fraud and the geographical dispersion of assets, the
Plaintiff argues that a comprehensive freesing order,
including assets outside Malaysia, is necessary to preserve
the integrity of any potential judgment.

17
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Analysis and findings of the court

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 26th Defendants

Good arguable case

[28] The Plaintiff argues that it has established a good arguable

case by presenting evidence implicating the 2nd, 3rd, 5th,
12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 26th Defendants (Shailen,
Wan Alias, Abdul Wahid, Tunku Mazlina, Paneagle
Holdings, Paneagle Sdn. Bhd., VCB Investment, Open
Fibre, and Zavarco PLC) in fraudulent conduct and
conspiracy related to the Alleged Fraud Scheme. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Alleged Fraud Scheme resulted in
significant financial losses and involved various
misrepresentations and transactions that diverted funds
away from the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, these
defendants played roles in orchestrating or facilitating these
activities, thereby breaching fiduciary duties and engaging
in unlawful conduct.

[29] The Plaintiff relies on the case of Biasamas Sdn Bhd & Ors
v Kan Yan Heng & Anor [1998] 4 CLJ 754 (Court of Appeal)
to contend that it does not need to demonstrate a prima
facie case but only a case that is more than merely
arguable.

[30] In response, the said defendants argue that the Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently particularise the alleged fraudulent acts,

18
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 contending that the Plaintiff’s case consists of general
conspiracy allegations without specificity. They argue that
there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the
said defendants and rely on the case of Kuan Pek Seng @
Alan Kuan v Robert Doran & Ors [2013] 2 MLJ 174 (Federal
Court) to support their assertion that vague allegations do
not meet the threshold for a good arguable case.

[31] Upon review of the evidence and submissions, while the

Plaintiff’s case raises significant concerns, particularly
regarding certain transactions and the roles played by the
defendants, the evidence does not yet conclusively prove
fraudulent intent or participation in an overarching
conspiracy by the said defendants. The Plaintiff has pointed
to specific documents and communications, such as email
correspondence from 13.9.2013 wherein Wan Alias appears
to have orchestrated a staged site visit for the Plaintiff. The
email instructed Aries staff to simulate progress on the fibre
optic network by setting up a temporary installation site.
According to the Plaintiff, this misrepresentation was critical
in persuading the Plaintiff to release further disbursements
of the Loan, despite the Project not progressing as originally
represented. The Plaintiff argues that this deceit was part of
a broader scheme to siphon off funds that were intended for
the development of the Project, with Shailen acting as a
shadow director, orchestrating financial transactions that
ultimately led to the misappropriation of substantial sums.

19
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [32] The Plaintiff also points to additional correspondence
involving Shailen, where he directed payments to entities
unrelated to the Project. These payments, according to the
Plaintiff, were authorised without the necessary disclosures
or approvals, raising concerns about the misuse of Loan
funds. Specifically, the Plaintiff highlights financial records
showing that funds were transferred to companies such as
Paneagle Holdings and Open Fibre, without evidence of any
corresponding work or legitimate services provided. The
Plaintiff argues that these transactions support its claim of a
coordinated effort to divert the Loan funds away from their
intended purpose.

[33] While these documents provide a glimpse into the

potentially improper actions of Shailen and Wan Alias, it is
important to note that these activities, though raising serious
concerns, are not, at this stage, definitively proven to be
fraudulent. The Plaintiff’s evidence suggests that there was
an intent to create a misleading impression of the Project's
progress, but the full extent of these individuals’
involvement in any conspiracy or fraudulent scheme will
require further inquiry during the trial. The Plaintiff has
presented sufficient material to meet the relatively low
threshold of a good arguable case, as required in an
interlocutory application.

[34] Similarly, the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the involvement of

Abdul Wahid, Tunku Mazlina, and corporate entities such as
Paneagle Holdings and Open Fibre in allegedly improper

20
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 transactions also raise issues that are arguable, though not
definitively proven at this stage. The Plaintiff contends that
these defendants played various roles in facilitating the
alleged conspiracy, specifically in transactions where funds
intended for the development of a fibre optic network were
misappropriated or redirected for purposes unrelated to the
Project.

[35] The Plaintiff has traced a series of financial transactions

that suggest a pattern of payments being made to these
corporate entities without corresponding evidence of work
being performed or services being rendered. For example,
the Plaintiff highlights payments made to Paneagle
Holdings, an entity that replaced Huawei Technologies as
the turnkey contractor for the Project. According to the
Plaintiff, this replacement was executed without the
Plaintiff's knowledge or consent and was part of a strategy
to funnel funds away from the Project. The Plaintiff argues
that the lack of any legitimate commercial basis for these
payments points to the deliberate misuse of the Loan
disbursements.

[36] In the case of Abdul Wahid and Tunku Mazlina, the Plaintiff
alleges that these individuals, as directors or key figures in
Aries and Zavarco Berhad, were directly involved in
authorising or facilitating questionable financial dealings that
led to the dissipation of funds. The Plaintiff points to
instances where these individuals approved transactions or
entered into agreements that ultimately allowed assets and

21
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 funds to be transferred out of Aries and into companies
controlled by the alleged conspirators. For example, the
Plaintiff refers to a novation agreement between Aries and
Zavarco Berhad, which it claims was used to transfer
valuable assets without any legitimate business rationale.
This novation, the Plaintiff argues, was part of a broader
scheme to strip Aries of its assets and frustrate the
Plaintiff’s efforts to recover the loaned amounts.

[37] The Plaintiff’s evidence includes financial records, payment

vouchers, and corporate documentation that suggest a
coordinated effort to divert substantial sums from the Loan
facility into entities such as Paneagle Holdings and Open
Fibre. The Plaintiff also refers to discrepancies in the
financial statements and records of these entities, which it
claims were manipulated to conceal the true nature of the
transactions. According to the Plaintiff, these actions were
not isolated incidents but part of a systematic attempt to
siphon off funds and deprive the Plaintiff of its rightful
recovery.

[38] While this evidence raises serious concerns, it is important

to note that the Plaintiff has not yet fully established the
extent to which Abdul Wahid, Tunku Mazlina, and the
implicated corporate entities acted knowingly or in concert
with the other defendants. The Plaintiff’s tracing of the funds
provides a foundation for further investigation, but the full
scope of these individuals’ involvement in any alleged
conspiracy remains to be determined at trial.

22
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [39] In conclusion, while the Plaintiff has presented a good
arguable case for the purposes of this application, the
evidence does not rise to the level of establishing any
definitive wrongdoing that would indicate an imminent risk of
asset dissipation. This will require further factual
development at trial, but the threshold for a good arguable
case is nonetheless satisfied at this interlocutory stage.

Real risk of dissipation

[40] The Plaintiff submits that there is a significant risk of

dissipation of assets by the said defendants, which justifies
the granting of a Mareva Injunction. The Plaintiff heavily
relies on allegations of questionable transactions within
Aries, suggesting that these indicate potential siphoning of
funds by the said defendants. The Plaintiff argues that
delays in the investigation should not undermine the risk, as
the said defendants’ conduct, including their control over
various entities and their history of dishonesty,
demonstrates a real risk of asset dissipation. The Plaintiff
contends that without the injunction, the said defendants
may dissipate assets, which would ultimately frustrate any
judgment in the Plaintiff's favor.

[41] The said defendants submit that the Plaintiff has failed to
establish a real risk of dissipation of assets, which is a
critical requirement for a Mareva Injunction. The said
defendants argue that the Plaintiff's evidence is speculative,
unsupported by verifiable facts, and based on outdated

23
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 transactions that are unrelated to the alleged conspiracy
from 2012. They also highlight that many of their assets
remain under financial oversight, and there is no
demonstrated intention or history of asset dissipation. The
said defendants further emphasise that the Plaintiff’s delay
in seeking the injunction, coupled with the lack of concrete
evidence, substantially weakens the claim of any imminent
risk.

[42] Weighing the competing considerations outlined in this

judgment, I am driven to the view that although the Plaintiff
has established a good arguable case overall, it has failed
to demonstrate sufficient evidence showing a real risk that
the said defendants would dissipate assets to frustrate any
potential judgment which is a necessary element to warrant
imposing a Mareva Injunction. Several considerations lead
me to this conclusion.

[43] First, the Plaintiff's argument hinges on allegations of

questionable transactions and potential siphoning of funds
in the accounts of Aries, specifically emphasising payments
to entities such as BVS Trinity and Paneagle Holdings. The
Plaintiff’s submissions suggest that the R&M, appointed by
the Plaintiff over Aries' assets, identified certain transactions
- including a payment of RM9,000,000 to BVS Trinity - that
the R&M described as “unjustified” or lacking clear purpose
due to the inability to establish any contractual relationship
between Aries and BVS Trinity. The Plaintiff escalates these
observations into allegations of siphoning.

24
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [44] However, the evidential weight of these claims appears
compromised by the R&M's own admission that it did not
contact or seek verification from Aries' directors or auditors,
such as UHY Chartered Accountants, regarding the
legitimacy of these payments. This critical omission,
whereby the R&M chose not to investigate further by
requesting supporting documents or clarifications from
those directly involved, significantly undermines the
reliability of the allegations. The R&M's position reflects a
deliberate decision to avoid alerting the said defendants
during their investigation, which the said defendants argue
indicates a one-sided approach that fails to provide a full
and balanced view of the transactions.

[45] Furthermore, these payments were reflected in Aries'

ordinary course of business and recorded in their audited
financial statements, diminishing the assertion that they
constituted fraudulent or questionable transactions. As
such, this lack of rigorous inquiry by the R&M and reliance
on speculative assertions without verification severely
weakens the Plaintiff's argument that the said defendants
engaged in asset dissipation.

[46] Second, the timeline of events further weakens the

Plaintiff's argument regarding the risk of dissipation. The
transactions now under scrutiny occurred in 2016 and 2018,
which is significantly removed from the initial Loan facility
granted to Aries in 2012. The Plaintiff contends that these
transactions are part of a broader scheme related to an

25
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 alleged conspiracy tied to the Loan, but this claim is
tenuous. The Plaintiff references suspicious payments
made in 2016 and 2018, such as the RM25 million
transferred to Rothschild Capital (I) Sdn Bhd (“Rothschild
Capital”) in 2012, and a subsequent series of transactions
totaling millions that allegedly siphoned funds from Aries.
However, the Plaintiff fails to explain how these later
transactions, years after the alleged conspiracy in 2012,
could directly link to the dissipation of assets stemming from
the Loan. Specifically, the gap between the alleged
misconduct surrounding the Loan disbursement and the
later transactions significantly weakens the claim that they
form part of the same scheme.

[47] Moreover, the said defendants pointed out that much of the
Plaintiff's argument relies on delayed action. They
emphasise that the Plaintiff did not seek a Mareva
Injunction until 2022, despite the fact that the transactions in
question occurred several years prior. This delay suggests
a lack of genuine urgency or belief that the assets were at
immediate risk of dissipation. The Plaintiff has not
adequately explained why such a delay occurred if there
was indeed a real risk that the said defendants would
dissipate assets to frustrate a judgment.

[48] This prolonged timeline and the lack of immediate action

from the Plaintiff considerably diminish the plausibility of a
dissipation risk tied to the 2012 Loan events, casting doubt

26
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 on the necessity of injunctive relief in the present
circumstances.

[49] Third, several of the said defendants have demonstrated

that their assets remain subject to existing charges with
financial institutions, including Maybank and CIMB, in
Malaysia. These charges provide a tangible indication of
financial oversight, which inherently limits the risk of asset
dissipation. In the Plaintiff's submissions, the charged
assets include significant properties and business assets
that are under the scrutiny of these financial institutions due
to existing loan agreements. This form of financial
immobilisation acts as a safeguard against the unauthorised
transfer or disposal of assets, as any significant movement
would likely require the consent of the financial institutions
involved.

[50] Additionally, these assets are recorded in the said

defendants' audited financial statements, further
underscoring their compliance with standard regulatory and
financial reporting obligations. The existence of audited
accounts demonstrates transparency in the said
defendants' financial dealings and mitigates the risk of
covert asset dissipation. For instance, audited reports
submitted for 2017 and 2018 indicate consistent disclosure
of assets and liabilities to the relevant authorities, further
reducing the likelihood that these assets would be secretly
siphoned off. The Plaintiff has not provided sufficient

27
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 evidence to contradict these reports or show any recent
dissipation attempts.

[51] Therefore, the presence of these charges and the said

defendants’ consistent compliance with regulatory
obligations significantly undermine the Plaintiff’s claims of a
substantial risk of asset dissipation, particularly in light of
the financial institutions’ continued oversight.

[52] Fourth, I am not satisfied with the Plaintiff's justification for

the significant delay in seeking the Mareva Injunction. The
Plaintiff has provided no reasonable explanation for why
they waited from September 2020 - when Aries’ R&M
allegedly completed the investigation - until June 2022 to
file for the injunction. According to the Plaintiff's own
submissions, the R&M concluded their investigation into
Aries’ financial affairs as early as September 2020, at which
point the Plaintiff would have had sufficient evidence to act.
Despite this, the Plaintiff inexplicably delayed its application
for nearly two years.

[53] The Plaintiff contends that the complexity of the case and
the scale of the Alleged Fraud Scheme justified this delay,
yet no detailed or compelling reasons have been offered to
substantiate this claim. The Plaintiff's failure to act promptly
suggests that the urgency and immediacy required for
Mareva relief were absent. As highlighted by the said
defendants, the Plaintiff’s lack of action immediately
following the R&M’s investigation undermines its assertion

28
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 that there was a genuine and imminent fear that the said
defendants would dissipate assets. In cases like these, the
passage of time without any attempt to secure assets
diminishes the credibility of the claim that such dissipation
was ever a real risk.

[54] Furthermore, it is well-established that delay in filing a

Mareva Injunction can, in certain circumstances, be fatal to
the claim for relief. The courts have held that where a party
claims a risk of dissipation, the delay in acting is a strong
indicator that such a risk may not exist. The Plaintiff’s two-
year delay, without a sufficient explanation, seriously
undermines the urgency required to justify an injunction of
this nature. Given the absence of any satisfactory
reasoning, the delay itself becomes a critical factor in
assessing whether the injunction is warranted.

[55] Fifth, there is significant judicial authority supporting the

principle that allegations of dishonesty alone, even if not
fully tested, do not automatically establish a real risk of
asset dissipation warranting the granting of a Mareva
Injunction. In the case of All Kurma Sdn Bhd v Teoh Heng
Tatt & Ors [2022] 9 CLJ 526, the High Court reiterated that
while the Plaintiff must demonstrate a good arguable case,
they also need to show with evaluable evidence that there is
a real risk of dissipation of assets intended to frustrate any
judgment. Merely conjecturing a risk, even if dishonesty is
alleged, does not meet the evidential threshold.

29
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [56] Similarly, in Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v Lee Yee Wuen [2022] 7
CLJ 505, the Court of Appeal emphasised that allegations
of dishonesty do not dispense with the need to provide
concrete evidence of a risk of dissipation. In that case, the
said defendants had allegedly misappropriated funds, but
the payments were documented, and there was no
evidence of concealment or any attempt to dissipate assets
to defeat a judgment.

[57] In Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier And Anor v Accent Delight

International Ltd And Anor And Another Appeal [2015]
SGCA 45, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the mere
presence of unproven allegations of dishonesty at an
interlocutory stage cannot serve as the sole foundation for
Mareva relief. The court pointed out that such allegations
might eventually be disproven, and the risk of dissipation
must be demonstrated with objective, substantiated
evidence, rather than relying solely on accusations.

[58] In the present case, while the Plaintiff has suggested

dishonesty and questionable financial transactions by the
said defendants, they have not sufficiently discharged the
burden of demonstrating an actual, imminent risk of
dissipation. As outlined by the judicial authorities,
dishonesty claims alone do not satisfy the evidentiary
requirements necessary to warrant such a significant
remedy as a Mareva Injunction. This remains unfulfilled in
the Plaintiff’s submissions.

30
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [59] Having carefully considered parties' submissions, I
conclude that the necessary ingredient of establishing real
risk of asset dissipation to ground a Mareva Injunction has
not been satisfied. Equity demands I exercise caution
before imposing far-reaching worldwide asset injunctions
absent compelling grounds shown to exist.

[60] In the circumstances, I dismiss the Plaintiff's Mareva

Injunction Application in Enclosure 106 against the 2nd, 3rd,
5th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 26th Defendants. Costs
of RM40,000.00 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to these
defendants.

10th Defendant

Good arguable case

[61] The Plaintiff asserts that the 10th Defendant, Wong,

conspired with others to manipulate the appointment of
Silver Ridge as the ICE for the Project, as part of the
Alleged Fraud Scheme. Wong, however, has maintained
that he acted solely in his capacity as a director of Silver
Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge and was not personally
involved in any conspiracy. He further argues that there is
no good arguable case against him, with the Plaintiff’s
claims being speculative and lacking substantive evidence.

[62] In determining whether the Plaintiff has established a good

arguable case, the test is not whether the Plaintiff has an

31
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 overwhelming likelihood of success but whether there is a
reasonable prospect that the Plaintiff may obtain judgment
at trial. As established in Biasamas Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kan
Yan Hing & Anor [supra], the Plaintiff need only
demonstrate a fair chance of success based on the
available evidence, not a strong prima facie case.

[63] The Plaintiff has presented some evidence suggesting

Wong’s involvement in the appointment process of Silver
Ridge as ICE. It is undisputed that Wong held the position
of director at the time of the appointment, but it is
acknowledged that directorship alone does not equate to
personal liability. However, the Plaintiff has sought to
demonstrate that Wong’s actions went beyond mere
administrative oversight, pointing to his participation in
meetings and his signing off on key documents related to
Silver Ridge’s appointment. These actions, according to the
Plaintiff, indicate Wong’s involvement in the appointment
process, which the Plaintiff argues was manipulated to
benefit other defendants.

[64] The Plaintiff emphasises that Wong’s approval of certain

documents and his involvement in meetings suggest he
played an active role in the selection of Silver Ridge.
However, the Plaintiff's evidence, while indicative of Wong’s
participation, does not conclusively establish that his actions
were part of a broader fraudulent scheme. The Plaintiff’s
case is primarily based on inferences drawn from Wong’s

32
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 role as a director and his involvement in the formal process
of appointing Silver Ridge as ICE.

[65] Wong contends that his actions were limited to his

corporate duties as a director, and there is insufficient
evidence to link him personally to the alleged conspiracy.
He argues that his signatures on various documents were
merely part of his routine responsibilities and do not support
the Plaintiff’s claims of personal involvement in fraudulent
activities. The Plaintiff, while presenting some evidence of
Wong’s participation in the Project’s administrative
processes, has not provided irrefutable proof of Wong’s
direct involvement in any fraudulent scheme.

[66] In light of the evidence presented, the Plaintiff has shown a

reasonable possibility that Wong’s role in the appointment
process may warrant further scrutiny. However, it is
important to note that this evidence, while sufficient to
support further investigation, does not conclusively
demonstrate Wong’s involvement in any fraudulent activity.
Thus, while the Plaintiff has met the threshold of showing a
fair chance of success at trial, the case against Wong
remains one that requires careful examination of all the
available evidence.

[67] Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiff has established a good

arguable case against Wong, sufficient to proceed to trial for
further examination, but not to the extent of establishing a

33
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 definitive case of fraud at this interlocutory stage. The
Plaintiff succeeds on this issue.

Risk of dissipation

[68] The Plaintiff submits that Wong poses a real risk of asset
dissipation, given his frequent travel abroad, which could
undermine any potential judgment. Despite Wong's
assertions, the Plaintiff argues that it is necessary to freeze
his assets through a Mareva Injunction to ensure that any
judgment would be enforceable. The Plaintiff contends that
mere undertakings by Wong not to withdraw more than
RM30,000 monthly from his bank accounts are insufficient
to eliminate the risk, as there is no concrete evidence of
Wong’s assets within the jurisdiction, and his movements
raise concerns about the potential dissipation of assets
beyond the court’s reach. The Plaintiff maintains that a
Mareva Injunction is essential to prevent Wong from
frustrating the court’s eventual judgment.

[69] Wong submits that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any
solid evidence that he possesses assets within the
jurisdiction or that there is any real risk of asset dissipation.
He argues that his foreign travel does not constitute
sufficient grounds to suggest he would remove assets to
frustrate a judgment. Additionally, Wong has voluntarily
undertaken not to withdraw more than RM30,000 monthly
from his bank accounts without prior consent from the court,
effectively addressing the Plaintiff’s concerns. Wong

34
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 maintains that this voluntary restriction on his financial
activities demonstrates his good faith and removes the
necessity of a Mareva Injunction, asserting that the balance
of convenience lies in dismissing the Plaintiff’s application.

[70] After a thorough examination of submissions and evidence

on this issue, I am led to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence showing a real risk
that Wong would dissipate assets to frustrate any potential
judgment.

[71] The evidence presented clearly indicates that Wong was

merely a former director of Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver
Ridge. Specifically, Silver Ridge was appointed as ICE for
the Project by the Plaintiff itself via a letter dated 25.9.2012.
This appointment process, as detailed in the submissions,
was part of a competitive evaluation initiated by the Plaintiff,
where Silver Ridge achieved the highest score and quoted
the lowest fee among several contenders. Wong’s role in
this regard was entirely operational and limited to his
capacity as a director of Silver Ridge.

[72] The submissions further clarify that there is no evidence to

suggest that Wong was personally involved in any
transactions relating to the Plaintiff’s Loan to Aries, nor did
he have any direct contractual relationship with the Plaintiff.
Despite the Plaintiff's claims, Wong’s involvement with the
Project was confined to his professional duties as ICE, a
role for which he had no personal financial stake. His

35
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 submissions emphasise that he did not receive any funds
from the Loan disbursed to Aries, and there is no
documentation or correspondence presented by the Plaintiff
that would contradict this position. Additionally, Wong was
not a beneficiary of any contractual arrangement with the
Plaintiff or Aries, further distancing him from any personal
involvement in the financial aspects of the Project. The
appointment of Silver Ridge as ICE, as per the Plaintiff’s
internal memo dated 18.7.2012, was purely professional,
and Wong’s actions remained within his corporate
responsibilities, with no evidence of impropriety or personal
gain.

[73] The Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence

demonstrating that Wong personally held any assets within
the jurisdiction, or that there was a real and imminent risk of
dissipation of such assets. Wong’s submissions emphasise
that the Plaintiff's allegations regarding his foreign travel are
insufficient to establish a genuine risk of asset dissipation.
The mere fact that Wong travels abroad between Malaysia
and Australia does not, by itself, substantiate any claim that
he intends to dissipate his assets in an attempt to frustrate
any potential judgment. The Plaintiff has provided no
evidence to suggest that Wong has moved or intends to
move any assets out of the jurisdiction, nor has it
demonstrated any behavior or actions on Wong's part that
would give rise to concerns of dishonesty or lack of probity.

36
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [74] Furthermore, Wong has consistently maintained that he
does not possess any assets within the jurisdiction that
would be subject to the Mareva Injunction, and the Plaintiff
has not offered any credible evidence to refute this. The
submissions point out that, under established legal
principles, mere assertions or speculative claims regarding
a defendant's foreign travel are insufficient to meet the
threshold required for proving a real risk of dissipation. As
highlighted by Wong’s counsel, the Plaintiff must
demonstrate this risk by presenting solid evidence, rather
than relying on bare allegations of travel abroad. In this
case, the Plaintiff has failed to provide such evidence, and
there is no indication that Wong has engaged in any
activities that would raise concerns about the potential
dissipation of assets.

[75] As part of his defence, Wong has undertaken a formal

commitment not to withdraw more than RM30,000 per
month from his personal bank accounts without prior
consent from the Plaintiff or leave of the court. This
voluntary undertaking significantly mitigates any concern
that Wong might dissipate his assets in a way that could
frustrate a future judgment. By agreeing to this restriction,
Wong has provided a safeguard that ensures his financial
activities remain transparent and under the oversight of the
court. This undertaking was made without the need for a
formal injunction, demonstrating Wong's willingness to
comply with reasonable conditions imposed by the court to
address any concerns raised by the Plaintiff.

37
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [76] The submissions further note that this undertaking serves to
strike a balance between the Plaintiff’s concerns about
asset dissipation and Wong's need to conduct normal
financial activities. As such, the balance of convenience
heavily favors dismissing Enclosure 106 against Wong. The
court should consider that the Plaintiff has not produced
sufficient evidence to suggest any immediate risk of asset
dissipation that would warrant the imposition of a Mareva
Injunction. Given Wong’s undertaking, the likelihood of harm
to the Plaintiff, if any, has been effectively neutralised.
Wong's actions demonstrate good faith and compliance with
the court’s processes, and the imposition of a more
restrictive order, such as the Mareva Injunction, would be
both unnecessary and disproportionate in the
circumstances.

[77] In the circumstances, I dismiss the Plaintiff's Mareva

Injunction Application in Enclosure 106 against Wong.
Costs of RM40,000.00 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the
10th Defendant, Wong.

4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 22nd, 24th and 25th Defendants

Good arguable case

[78] The Plaintiff submitted that a Mareva Injunction against the

4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 22nd, 24th, and 25th
Defendants (Roslina, Mohd Radzi, Shazhakim, Shasa
Arina, Mustafa Ali, Abd. Hadi, Orient Telecoms, BVS Trinity,

38
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 and VCB Malaysia) is justified based on its claim of
conspiracy and fraudulent actions allegedly carried out by
the said Defendants. The Plaintiff argues that these
Defendants, acting in concert, were involved in the
siphoning of funds from the Loan granted by the Plaintiff to
Aries, transferring assets to related entities, including Orient
Telecoms, to undermine the Plaintiff’s recovery efforts. The
Plaintiff supports its claims with affidavits, bank records, and
company documents, which, it contends, show the
involvement of the said defendants in the Alleged Fraud
Scheme.

[79] The said defendants, however, denied any wrongdoing,

asserting that the Plaintiff has not established a good
arguable case. They contend that the Plaintiff had affirmed
the validity of the Loan by filing Suit 313 and is thus
estopped from claiming conspiracy or fraud. They also deny
involvement in the alleged transfer of assets from Aries to
Orient Telecoms.

[80] The legal threshold for establishing a good arguable case in

a Mareva application is less stringent than that for proving a
prima facie case. According to established principles, such
as those set out in Biasamas, the Plaintiff need only
demonstrate that the case is fairly arguable and capable of
serious argument. The case need not have more than a
50% likelihood of success but must be something more than
a speculative or frivolous claim.

39
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [81] Having reviewed the evidence and submissions, I find that
the Plaintiff has presented sufficient material to meet the
threshold for a good arguable case against the said
defendants. However, while the Plaintiff has submitted
detailed financial records, correspondence, and affidavits
pointing to a potential conspiracy, it is crucial to note that
this finding is preliminary and must be approached with
caution. For instance, while the Plaintiff alleges that RM25
million was transferred to Rothschild Capital in a suspicious
transaction, there is still room for the Defendants to provide
legitimate explanations at a later stage.

[82] The timing of certain actions, such as the resignation of

Roslina as a director of Aries on the day a letter of demand
was issued, raises questions about the involvement of the
said defendants. Nevertheless, these facts alone do not
definitively prove the Alleged Fraud Scheme alleged by the
Plaintiff at this interlocutory stage.

[83] The Plaintiff's claim that assets were transferred to Orient

Telecoms without commercial justification is also supported
by the evidence it has provided, including the reassignment
of contracts initially held by Aries. However, it is
acknowledged that the legitimacy of these transactions has
not yet been conclusively determined.

[84] In conclusion, while the Plaintiff has established a

sufficiently arguable case to justify further examination, it
must be emphasised that this finding does not extend to

40
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 definitive conclusions about the defendants' involvement in
fraudulent activities. The evidence presented warrants the
case being pursued, but this conclusion must be viewed
within the context of the Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate
solid grounds for asset dissipation, which will be addressed
separately below.

Risk of dissipation

[85] The Plaintiff submits that there is a real and credible risk of
dissipation by the said defendants due to their involvement
in a fraudulent scheme, specifically the Alleged Fraud
Scheme, which led to the siphoning of funds from the Loan.
The Plaintiff argues that the said defendants have engaged
in dishonest activities, including transferring funds between
related companies and issuing payments without legitimate
commercial purposes. The Plaintiff contends that these
actions demonstrate an intent to dissipate assets, thus
justifying the need for Mareva relief. The Plaintiff asserts
that despite the absence of direct evidence, the fraudulent
nature of the said defendants’ conduct provides a strong
inference of a risk of dissipation, which meets the necessary
threshold for Mareva Injunctions to be granted.

[86] The said defendants submit that the Plaintiff has failed to
meet the high evidentiary threshold required to establish a
real risk of dissipation. They argue that the Plaintiff’s
reliance on unproven allegations of fraud and dishonesty is
insufficient at this interlocutory stage. The said defendants

41
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 provide legitimate commercial explanations for the
transactions in question, such as the repayment of prior
advances and payments for consultancy services. They
emphasise that there is no direct evidence linking the
payments they received to any intent to dissipate assets or
avoid legal liabilities. The said defendants further assert that
Malaysian and international jurisprudence require solid
evidence of dissipation risk, separate from unsubstantiated
claims of dishonesty, which the Plaintiff has failed to
provide.

[87] Balancing all the factors argued above, I am satisfied that

the appropriate finding is that the Plaintiff has failed to
adduce solid evidence demonstrating a real risk that the
said defendants would dissipate assets to frustrate
enforcement of any judgment.

[88] I note that there is no objective evidence that the said

defendants have previously attempted to dissipate assets
when threatened with legal proceedings. For example,
recent company searches dated 14.6.2022 exhibited by the
Plaintiff in fact show that entities connected to the said
defendants continue to hold substantial assets within
Malaysia. Orient Telecoms holds assets amounting to
RM37,692,988, according to a company search, VCB
Malaysia holds assets totaling RM24,100,297, also verified
through the Plaintiff’s exhibited searches. Similarly, BVS
Trinity possesses assets worth RM11,102,990. These
figures clearly reflect that substantial assets remain within

42
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is submitted that these
corporate entities have shown no historical patterns of
removing or attempting to remove assets outside Malaysia,
thus negating the presumption of asset dissipation. The
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any historical or current
attempts by the said defendants to remove assets from the
jurisdiction, as would be required to meet the threshold of
showing a real risk of dissipation, let alone the near
certainty of dissipation. The fact that these substantial
assets are still within the country contradicts the Plaintiff
claims, as there is no evidence of an immediate or credible
risk of dissipation, and this court should not grant a Mareva
Injunction based on mere conjecture and unproven
allegations.

[89] Moreover, the said defendants have provided plausible

explanations for each of the alleged transactions, directly
challenging the Plaintiff’s narrative of asset dissipation. The
said defendants submitted affidavit evidence explaining that
the alleged siphoning transactions had legitimate
commercial purposes. For instance, the RM9 million
payment to BVS Trinity was a repayment for a prior
advance of funds made by BVS Trinity to Aries in the
ordinary course of business on 7.1.2016, which was
substantiated through banker’s cheques issued by BVS
Trinity. While the Plaintiff had argued that these payment
vouchers were concealed under the guise of Paneagle
Holdings, the said defendants maintained that these
payments were legitimate and properly accounted for.

43
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Furthermore, the payment of RM400,000 to VCB Malaysia
was for consultancy services rendered to Aries, including
corporate finance services such as the preparation of cash
flows, market research, and documentation, as evidenced
by an invoice exhibited by the said defendants. These
transactions were explained through detailed affidavits and
accompanying documentation, directly refuting the Plaintiff’s
claims of asset dissipation without any supporting evidence
of dishonesty or fraudulent activity.

[90] Legal precedents, such as those set in Seema

Development Sdn Bhd v Mah Kim Chye & Anor [1998] 1
CLJ 174 (High Court), establish that the court requires solid
evidence to support a claim of near-certain asset
dissipation. It is insufficient for a plaintiff to rely on
allegations or speculative inferences. In Seema
Development, the court held that a risk of dissipation must
be 'almost a certainty,' and this principle has been reiterated
in subsequent cases. The Plaintiff's reliance on the Alleged
Fraud Scheme and general allegations of dishonesty does
not meet this stringent evidential burden. There has been
no direct evidence linking the funds received by these
Defendants to the Loan provided by the Plaintiff. This failure
to establish a causal link between the alleged siphoning and
the Loan severely weakens the Plaintiff’s case.

[91] Moreover, the court’s application of the principle established

in Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier v Accent Delight
International Ltd is highly relevant. In that case, the

44
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Singapore Court of Appeal cautioned against treating
allegations of dishonesty made at the interlocutory stage as
if they had already been proven. The court specifically
noted that such allegations could be refuted later and
should not form the sole basis for granting Mareva relief.
Similarly, in Malaysian jurisprudence, cases such as All
Kurma Sdn Bhd and PH 385 Sdn Bhd v JPS Holdings Sdn
Bhd & Ors [2020] MLJU 1370 (High Court) have
underscored the necessity of a thorough and independent
assessment of the risk of dissipation, divorced from
unproven claims of dishonesty or fraud. As was held in All
Kurma, the mere assertion of dishonesty, absent solid
evidence of a real risk, is insufficient for a court to grant a
Mareva Injunction. This requirement for clear, objective
evidence is a consistent theme in both local and
international jurisprudence, and it applies squarely to the
present case.

[92] In granting invasive Mareva relief, it is trite that the Plaintiff

must fulfil a high evidentiary threshold demonstrating a real
risk of dissipation that is almost a certainty. However, the
Plaintiff has merely put forth interlocutory allegations of
dishonesty and fraud which remain unproven. Such bare
assertions cannot form the basis for establishing risk of
dissipation. The prospect of the Plaintiff eventually proving
fraud is an inquiry separate and distinct from the analysis of
whether sufficient objective evidence exists showing a real
risk of asset dissipation. Here, the Plaintiff has plainly failed
to adduce solid evidence meeting the high threshold.

45
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [93] Therefore, I find that the Plaintiff has not fulfilled the
requirement of demonstrating a real risk of dissipation of
assets. While the Plaintiff may potentially have a reasonably
arguable case on the merits, that does not relieve the
Plaintiff of having to independently establish the separate
prerequisite of a real risk of asset dissipation on sufficiently
solid evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the application
for a Mareva Injunction is dismissed. Costs of RM40,000.00
are to be paid by the Plaintiff to these defendants.

19th Defendant

Good arguable case

[94] The Plaintiff seeks a Mareva Injunction against the 19th

Defendant, Primawin, on the grounds that the Plaintiff has a
good arguable case in respect of claims of fraud, conspiracy
to defraud, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and a
Quistclose trust. Primawin, however, contends that the
Plaintiff has not met the threshold of a good arguable case,
asserting that the allegations are misconceived and lack the
necessary evidential foundation. It is within this context that
the court must determine whether the Plaintiff has
established a good arguable case, as required for the
granting of a Mareva Injunction.

[95] The legal standard for determining whether there is a good

arguable case is not particularly high. As outlined in
Biasamas Sdn Bhd, the Plaintiff is not required to show a

46
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 case that is so strong as to warrant summary judgment, nor
is it required to establish that it has a better than 50%
chance of success. Rather, the threshold is that the Plaintiff
must demonstrate that its case is more than barely capable
of serious argument.

[96] In applying this standard, the Plaintiff's allegations against

Primawin are grounded primarily in claims of fraud and
conspiracy, with particular emphasis on the unlawful
transfer of funds. The Plaintiff asserts that Primawin was a
key recipient of funds that were siphoned from the Loan
Sum provided by the Plaintiff to Aries. According to the
Plaintiff, these transfers were not isolated incidents but part
of a well-orchestrated scheme designed to misappropriate
the Loan Sum. The Plaintiff has outlined in its affidavit in
support which illustrate how specific amounts from the Loan
Sum were unlawfully diverted to Primawin. These
submissions focus on the fraudulent nature of these
transactions, alleging that the monies were transferred
without any legitimate business justification and were not
used for their intended purpose of financing the coastal fibre
optic network project.

[97] The Plaintiff also highlights the involvement of various

intermediaries and shell companies that were allegedly
used to obscure the true destination of the Loan Sum. In
this context, Primawin is positioned as one of the key
entities in this chain, receiving substantial amounts that
were purportedly siphoned from Aries as part of this broader

47
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 fraudulent arrangement. The Plaintiff points to the lack of
any legitimate consideration or value in return for these
transfers, further asserting that Primawin’s involvement was
integral to the conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff. By
showing the direct flow of funds from Aries to Primawin, the
Plaintiff contends that Primawin knowingly received and
benefited from the misappropriated Loan Sum. This tracing
of the funds forms a critical part of the Plaintiff's case,
aiming to establish that Primawin was not merely a passive
recipient but an active participant in the Alleged Fraud
Scheme.

[98] Primawin, on the other hand, has argued that the Plaintiff
has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a nexus
between the Loan Sum and the monies received by
Primawin. However, as the Plaintiff correctly submits, issues
of fraud and conspiracy are best adjudicated at trial, where
evidence can be led and tested through cross-examination.
At this stage, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove its
case to the fullest extent, but rather to demonstrate that
there is a fair chance it will succeed.

[99] Primawin relies on the case of Menk Sdn Bhd v Joerg Hugo
Schmidt [2009] 3 MLJ 205 (Court of Appeal) to support its
contention that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a good
arguable case. However, this authority is distinguishable. In
Menk, the Court of Appeal set aside a Mareva Order due to
a misdirection by the High Court and the failure to assess
the applicant's chances of success. There was no finding by

48
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the Court of Appeal on whether the applicant had a good
arguable case.

[100] In contrast, the present case involves serious allegations of

fraud, and the Plaintiff has provided a detailed factual matrix
to support its claim. Moreover, Menk concerned a breach of
contract, which further distinguishes it from the present
matter involving fraud and conspiracy.

[101] In weighing the submissions of both parties, it is clear that

the Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to meet the
threshold of a good arguable case. The detailed tracing of
funds, coupled with the serious nature of the allegations,
supports the conclusion that the Plaintiff's claims against
Primawin are more than capable of serious argument. While
Primawin has raised objections regarding the sufficiency of
the evidence, these objections are not sufficient to displace
the Plaintiff's case at this stage.

[102] For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Plaintiff has
established a good arguable case against Primawin.
Accordingly, the threshold requirement for the granting of a
Mareva Injunction is satisfied in this respect. However, this
finding is limited to the issue of whether there is a good
arguable case, and no determination is made at this stage
regarding the risk of dissipation of assets, which remains to
be addressed below.

49
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Risk of dissipation

[103] The Plaintiff submits that there is a significant risk of

Primawin dissipating its assets based on its connection to
other defendants, particularly Shailen, who has been
implicated in fraudulent activities. The Plaintiff argues that
Primawin's involvement in a broader scheme orchestrated
by Shailen, combined with the lack of substantial assets
within the jurisdiction, raises concerns about asset
dissipation. The Plaintiff also contends that Primawin’s
affiliation with other defendants accused of fraud suggests a
lack of probity, warranting the imposition of a Mareva
Injunction. Additionally, the Plaintiff maintains that the
affidavit submitted by Primawin does not sufficiently negate
the risk, as it merely reflects compliance without addressing
the broader fraudulent context.

[104] Primawin submits that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any
concrete evidence demonstrating a lack of probity or
dishonesty on the part of Primawin. It argues that the
Plaintiff's case relies heavily on unsubstantiated links
between Primawin and other defendants, without providing
independent evidence of wrongdoing by Primawin itself.
Primawin emphasises that it has fully complied with the
court’s order in Enclosure 35 by disclosing all of its assets
transparently, including details of its HSBC bank account
and significant shares held within the jurisdiction. This
transparency, they contend, undermines the Plaintiff’s
allegations of a risk of asset dissipation and demonstrates

50
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Primawin’s good faith and willingness to comply with the
legal process.

[105] On a comprehensive review of the facts and law applicable

to this case, I determine that the Plaintiff has not
established that there is a potential dissipation of assets by
the said defendants.

[106] In the present case, the Plaintiff has not brought forward
substantial evidence to demonstrate that Primawin has
initiated or is likely to initiate any steps to dissipate its
assets. From the Plaintiff's submissions, it is clear that the
allegations of dissipation are heavily reliant on accusations
made against other defendants in the suit, specifically
Shailen. The Plaintiff attempts to draw a connection
between Primawin and the alleged misconduct of these
other defendants, particularly Shailen, to support its claim of
a risk of asset dissipation by Primawin. However, this
argument is not convincing when subjected to closer
scrutiny.

[107] The Plaintiff’s own submissions merely repeat accusations

against other defendants without presenting independent,
concrete evidence of Primawin’s actions that would indicate
a risk of dissipation. The Plaintiff highlights the involvement
of Shailen in orchestrating the Alleged Fraud Scheme, but it
fails to adequately link these actions to Primawin in a way
that suggests that Primawin itself has engaged in or intends
to engage in similar conduct. This distinction is crucial, as

51
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the conduct of Primawin must be evaluated independently
of other defendants. The Court of Appeal in Ang Chee Huat
v Thomas Joseph Engelbach [1995] 2 CLJ 893 firmly
established that the conduct of the defendant in question
must be directly assessed to justify a Mareva Injunction. A
mere association or connection with other defendants
cannot be the sole basis for the injunction.

[108] Furthermore, the Federal Court in S & F International Ltd v

Trans Co Engineering Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 62
underscored the necessity of solid evidence showing a clear
risk of asset dissipation before a Mareva Injunction can be
granted. This includes showing a lack of probity or honesty
on the part of the defendant in question. In this case, the
Plaintiff has not provided evidence that Primawin lacks
probity, nor has it shown that Primawin’s conduct indicates
a real risk of dissipation of assets. Without concrete
evidence, the Plaintiff’s claim amounts to speculation, and
such speculation does not meet the high threshold required
for the granting of an injunction of this nature. The mere fact
that Primawin is linked to other defendants accused of fraud
is not enough to prove that Primawin itself poses a risk of
asset dissipation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s arguments, while
extensive, do not substantiate the claim that Primawin is
likely to dissipate its assets.

[109] The principle established in Ikatan Innovasi Sdn Bhd v

KACC Construction Sdn Bhd [2008] 3 CLJ 48 (High Court)
emphasises that in order to secure a Mareva Injunction,

52
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 there must be cogent evidence pointing to a lack of probity
on the part of the defendant. Lack of probity, in this context,
refers to dishonesty or conduct that indicates a real risk that
the defendant may dissipate their assets to evade
enforcement of a judgment. The courts have consistently
held that the burden lies with the Plaintiff to provide
evidence that demonstrates such a lack of probity. In this
case, however, the Plaintiff has not successfully met this
burden with respect to Primawin.

[110] The Plaintiff’s submissions allege that Primawin is

implicated in a broader fraudulent scheme orchestrated by
other defendants, particularly Shailen. However, despite
these assertions, the Plaintiff has not presented direct
evidence that Primawin itself acted with a lack of honesty or
intention to conceal assets. Instead, the Plaintiff relies on its
broader theory of conspiracy involving multiple defendants,
but this does not sufficiently establish that Primawin
independently engaged in actions that raise concerns about
the dissipation of its assets.

[111] Furthermore, Primawin has been transparent in its dealings

with the court. In compliance with Enclosure 35, Primawin
submitted an affidavit fully disclosing its assets, including
the balance of HKD20,706.40 held in its HSBC bank
account and the redeemable preference shares owed by
Open Fibre, amounting to RM96,000,000.00. The
thoroughness of this disclosure reflects a willingness to
comply with court orders and negates any inference that

53
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Primawin is attempting to shield or hide its assets from
potential enforcement actions. The affidavit demonstrates
Primawin’s financial position and willingness to adhere to
legal procedures, thereby countering the Plaintiff’s
allegations of dishonesty.

[112] The Plaintiff has not challenged the accuracy or

completeness of Primawin’s affidavit, nor has it produced
evidence to suggest that Primawin’s disclosure was
incomplete or misleading. In the absence of such evidence,
the court must conclude that Primawin has acted
transparently, and there is no substantial basis to infer that
Primawin’s conduct poses a real risk of asset dissipation.
The Federal Court’s guidance in S & F International Ltd v
Trans Co Engineering Sdn Bhd underscores the necessity
of concrete evidence showing dishonesty or a risk of
dissipation, which the Plaintiff has not provided in this
instance.

[113] As a result, the Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate a lack of

probity in Primawin’s conduct, coupled with Primawin’s full
compliance with the disclosure order, leads to the
conclusion that there is no real risk of asset dissipation by
Primawin. The Plaintiff’s allegations, without corresponding
evidence, fall short of meeting the legal threshold required
for the imposition of a Mareva Injunction against Primawin.

[114] In conclusion, considering the totality of evidence

presented, the Plaintiff has failed to furnish convincing

54
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 evidence that Primawin poses a real risk of dissipating
assets. The assertions made by the Plaintiff do not meet the
threshold required for the imposition of a Mareva Injunction.
Primawin has shown itself to be forthcoming in its disclosure
of assets, thereby countering the claims of potential asset
dissipation. As such, the court finds that the application for a
Mareva Injunction against Primawin by the Plaintiff under
Enclosure 106 is not supported by sufficient evidence of a
risk of asset dissipation and is therefore dismissed. Costs of
RM40,000.00 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 19th
Defendant, Primawin.

23rd and 27th Defendants

Good arguable case

[115] The Plaintiff’s application for a Mareva Injunction against

the 23rd and 27th Defendants, Silver Ridge Holdings and
Silver Ridge, is primarily grounded on the contention that
the Plaintiff has a good arguable case. The Plaintiff alleges
that Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge were involved in
the fraudulent mismanagement of the Loan facility.
Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that these defendants were
implicated in irregularities surrounding the Project, including
the issuance of inaccurate or incomplete reports, which the
Plaintiff only discovered upon the appointment of an R&M.
The Plaintiff argues that these actions are sufficient to meet
the threshold of a good arguable case necessary for the
issuance of a Mareva Injunction.

55
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [116] Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge, on the other hand,
contend that the Plaintiff has no arguable case against
them. They argue that srhwas not involved in the Project in
any substantial manner and was only named by virtue of
being the holding company of Silver Ridge. Moreover, they
argue that the Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under the
Limitation Act 1953, as any alleged irregularities should
have been discovered in 2013 when the reports in question
were submitted. They also contend that any discrepancies
in the reports of Silver Ridge were acknowledged by the
Plaintiff at the time of submission, and no complaints were
raised until nearly a decade later. Furthermore, the said
defendants assert that the Plaintiff’s claim is an improper
attempt to use the court to recover for its own wrongdoings,
invoking the principle of ex turpi causa.

[117] In considering whether the Plaintiff has a good arguable

case, the threshold is that the Plaintiff’s case must be more
than barely capable of serious argument but does not need
to be one that has more than a fifty percent chance of
success. The applicable test has been well-established in
cases such as S & F International Limited v Trans-con
Engineering Sdn Bhd, where it was held that the threshold
for an arguable case is relatively low.

[118] Upon review of the evidence, it is clear that the Plaintiff has
met this threshold. The findings of the R&M, which only
came to light in 2020, point to discrepancies and
irregularities in the reports prepared by Silver Ridge in

56
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 relation to the Project. The Plaintiff has produced
substantial evidence, including the affidavits of the R&M
and supporting documents, which demonstrate that there
were omissions and inaccuracies in the reports submitted
by Silver Ridge. Although the said defendants argue that
these discrepancies should have been discovered earlier,
the evidence shows that the irregularities were not apparent
until the detailed investigations conducted by the R&M. This
supports the Plaintiff’s position that it could not have
reasonably discovered the alleged wrongdoing earlier, thus
countering the said defendants’ limitation argument.

[119] Moreover, the relationship between Silver Ridge Holdings

and Silver Ridge, specifically the fact that Silver Ridge
Holdings is the holding company of Silver Ridge, does not
negate the possibility of liability. While Silver Ridge Holdings
may not have been directly involved in the preparation of
reports, its role as the holding company creates sufficient
grounds for the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff has provided
evidence indicating that the Alleged Fraud Scheme may
have involved both entities, and this is sufficient to establish
a good arguable case against Silver Ridge Holdings as well.

[120] The said defendants’ reliance on the principle of ex turpi

causa is also unconvincing. While it is true that the Plaintiff’s
former Group Managing Director was involved in the
disbursement of the Loan, this does not absolve the said
defendants of liability for their subsequent actions. The
principle of ex turpi causa cannot be invoked where the

57
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Plaintiff is seeking to recover for losses caused by the said
defendants’ alleged fraud, as established in Bilta (UK) Ltd
(in liquidation) v Nasir [2015] 2 All ER 1083 (UK Supreme
Court).

[121] In conclusion, based on the material provided, I am satisfied

that the Plaintiff has a good arguable case against Silver
Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge. The Plaintiff has
presented credible evidence that demonstrates the
existence of irregularities and fraudulent conduct involving
the said defendants. The said defendants’ submissions on
the limitation period and the principle of ex turpi causa are
not persuasive in light of the evidence presented.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has met the threshold for
establishing a good arguable case, and the application for a
Mareva Injunction on this ground should succeed. However,
this finding is limited to the question of the good arguable
case, and does not extend to the issue of dissipation, which
will be addressed below.

Risk of dissipation

[122] The Plaintiff submits that there is a real and present risk of
asset dissipation by Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge
based on allegations of past dishonesty and misconduct.
The Plaintiff contends that these defendants, having
engaged in questionable financial practices several years
ago, may attempt to place their assets beyond the reach of
the court to avoid satisfying any potential judgment. The

58
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Plaintiff highlights that, although these acts of dishonesty
occurred some time ago, they point to a pattern of behavior
that warrants the granting of a Mareva Injunction to prevent
any pre-emptive dissipation of assets that could frustrate
the enforcement of a final judgment.

[123] Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge submit that the
Plaintiff has failed to provide any substantive or current
evidence indicating a genuine risk of asset dissipation. They
argue that mere allegations of dishonesty from nearly a
decade ago are insufficient grounds to justify the
extraordinary relief of a Mareva Injunction. The said
defendants emphasise their ongoing compliance with court
orders, including the regular and transparent disclosure of
financial expenditures as per the Consent Order dated
17.8.2022. Furthermore, as Silver Ridge Holdings is a
publicly listed company subject to stringent regulatory
scrutiny, its financial activities are already under constant
monitoring, making any risk of hidden asset transfers or
dissipation highly unlikely.

[124] After a comprehensive assessment of the competing

contentions, I have reached the firm conclusion that the
Plaintiff has not established that there is a potential
dissipation of assets by Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver
Ridge.

[125] The affidavits presented by the Plaintiff primarily hinge on

allegations of a lack of probity and honesty in the conduct of

59
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the defendants in this action, particularly Silver Ridge
Holdings and Silver Ridge. The Plaintiff alleges that these
defendants’ past actions reflect dishonesty, thus creating a
risk of asset dissipation. However, these allegations, while
concerning, do not meet the evidentiary threshold required
to support a Mareva Injunction, as established in the
precedent of Seema Development Sdn Bhd. According to
Seema Development, allegations alone, even if serious, are
insufficient. They must be supported by concrete evidence
demonstrating a real risk of dissipation of assets. This
requirement was further emphasised in All Kurma Sdn Bhd
v Teoh Heng Tatt & Ors, where the court clarified that
general accusations of dishonesty must be proven with
substantive, credible evidence, rather than being assumed
as indicative of a future intention to dissipate assets.

[126] In this case, the Plaintiff’s reliance on past instances of

allegedly dishonest conduct does not provide the court with
the necessary assurance of a genuine risk. The Plaintiff
refers to actions taken by the said defendants some nine
years ago, yet there is no clear link between these historical
events and a current, tangible risk of asset dissipation. The
court cannot assume that prior dishonesty, particularly
unproven or unsubstantiated allegations, automatically
leads to the conclusion that assets will be dissipated.
Dishonesty, as discussed in the Malaysian cases, must be
of such a nature that it directly influences the risk of
dissipation, not merely serve as an unproven allegation.

60
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [127] Moreover, the conduct of Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver
Ridge, particularly in their adherence to the Consent Order
dated 17.8.2022, significantly undermines the Plaintiff’s
allegations of a risk of dissipation. According to the terms of
the Consent Order, the said defendants were permitted to
draw and expend up to RM3,000,000.00 per month for the
ordinary and proper course of their business, provided they
filed affidavits detailing their expenditures by the 28th of
each month. The affidavits on spending, consistently
submitted by the said defendants, include comprehensive
itemisation of both fixed expenditures - such as payroll,
taxes, rental, utilities, and loans - and justifiable variable
expenses, including subcontractor payments and staff
advance. This diligent and transparent monthly reporting
demonstrates The said defendants' compliance with the
court order, negating the Plaintiff’s assertions of misconduct
or concealment of assets.

[128] In further support of this transparency, the said defendants

have disclosed a detailed breakdown of their monthly
expenditures for the latter half of 2022, including expenses
of RM1,282,610.73 in August, RM915,194.22 in September,
RM923,596.46 in October, and RM1,440,804.56 in
November. This regular disclosure, combined with the said
defendants’ financial prudence in adhering to fixed and
justifiable variable costs, portrays a pattern of responsible
financial management.

61
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [129] Furthermore, the legal standing of Silver Ridge Holdings as
a public listed company on the ACE Market of Bursa
Securities subjects it to strict scrutiny and regulatory
oversight under the guidelines set by Bursa Malaysia. As a
listed entity Silver Ridge Holdings is bound by the ACE
Market Listing Requirements, which necessitate regular and
detailed disclosures of its financial performance, including
quarterly financial reports, significant transactions, and
other relevant information required by investors and
regulators. These reports are made publicly available
through Bursa Malaysia’s official platform, ensuring that
stakeholders, including the Plaintiff, have full access to the
company's financial data. This transparency in financial
reporting, mandated by the listing requirements, serves as
an added layer of security, allowing the Plaintiff to monitor
Silver Ridge Holdings’s financial activities without the need
for speculation or assumptions regarding asset dissipation.

[130] Similarly, Silver Ridge, being a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Silver Ridge Holdings, is also subject to financial scrutiny as
its performance directly affects the parent company’s
financial disclosures. The consolidation of financial
accounts means that Silver Ridge’s activities are embedded
in the reports submitted by Silver Ridge Holdings.
Therefore, any material changes in the subsidiary’s financial
position, including significant asset transfers or liquidity
issues, would be reflected in the parent company's financial
statements. This provides an additional safeguard against
the risk of undisclosed or concealed asset dissipation,

62
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 further reducing any perceived risk of the said defendants
attempting to frustrate potential judgment enforcement.

[131] Given that these financial statements must comply with both
Bursa Malaysia regulations and the Malaysian Accounting
Standards Board, the likelihood of these defendants
engaging in activities that would dissipate assets without
detection is significantly minimised. Moreover, the Plaintiff
has not provided any substantive evidence to suggest that
these publicly available reports have been manipulated or
are inaccurate, reinforcing the conclusion that there is no
real risk of asset dissipation based on the available financial
data.

[132] The principles established in Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier v

Accent Delight International Ltd, along with relevant
Malaysian case law, caution against conflating allegations
of dishonesty with an automatic presumption of a risk of
dissipation. In the Bouvier case, the court emphasised that
dishonesty alone, particularly when alleged at an
interlocutory stage, cannot serve as the sole ground for a
Mareva Injunction. Similarly, in the Malaysian context,
courts have consistently held that allegations, especially
those not substantiated by direct evidence, must be
carefully scrutinised before granting such a drastic remedy
as a Mareva Injunction. A Mareva Injunction is an
exceptional form of relief, designed to prevent a defendant
from dissipating assets before the outcome of the trial, and

63
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 it should not be granted lightly or based merely on
accusations without substantial backing.

[133] At this interlocutory stage, the Plaintiff bears a significant

burden to demonstrate a genuine risk that Silver Ridge
Holdings and Silver Ridge are actively attempting to
dissipate their assets with the intent to frustrate the
enforcement of any potential judgment. This risk cannot be
inferred merely from accusations of past dishonesty,
especially when these events occurred 9 to 10 years ago,
and are not contemporaneous with the current proceedings.
As the court in Bouvier and subsequent cases reaffirmed,
past dishonest conduct, while relevant, does not
automatically equate to a present-day risk of asset
dissipation. The court must require solid, contemporary
evidence showing that the said defendants are currently
placing assets beyond the reach of the Plaintiff. In this
instance, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of any
recent actions by Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge
that would indicate an intention to dissipate assets. Instead,
the Plaintiff relies on historical events, which, although
serious, do not reflect the said defendants' current financial
conduct.

[134] Furthermore, Malaysian jurisprudence has similarly

stressed that the burden of proof lies heavily on the Plaintiff
to establish a real risk of dissipation, supported by a
preponderance of evidence. This was made clear in cases
such as All Kurma Sdn Bhd v Teoh Heng Tatt & Ors, where

64
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the courts cautioned against relying solely on unproven
allegations or historical misconduct. The Plaintiff must
provide compelling, objective evidence that the said
defendants are actively transferring or concealing assets in
a manner that would impede judgment enforcement. This
court must assess the evidence before it independently and
rigorously to determine whether there is a real and
immediate risk of asset dissipation, not just a speculative or
theoretical one. In this case, such evidence is lacking.

[135] In conclusion, while the Plaintiff has established a good

arguable case, it has not met the requisite standard of proof
to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets by Silver
Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge. The evidence presented
does not satisfy the threshold of “almost a certainty” that
these defendants would act to dissipate assets. Therefore,
in light of the foregoing analysis and pursuant to the legal
principles governing Mareva Injunctions, the Plaintiff’s
application for a Mareva Injunction under Enclosure 106
against Silver Ridge Holdings and Silver Ridge is hereby
dismissed. Costs of RM40,000.00 are to be paid by the
Plaintiff to these defendants.

28th and 29th Defendants

Good arguable case

[136] The Plaintiff also seeks a Mareva Injunction against the

28th and 29th Defendants, Izlin and Radzi Zafer (“the

65
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Administrators”), who are joint administrators of Zafer’s
estate in relation to its claim arising from the Alleged Fraud
Scheme involving the Loan. The Plaintiff asserts that it has
a good arguable case against the Administrators, based on
the conduct of Zafer, which purportedly facilitated the fraud
and led to significant financial losses. In response, the
Administrators argue that the Plaintiff’s claim lacks
substance and contend that Zafer was not solely
responsible for the Loan disbursement decisions, further
asserting that no breach of fiduciary duties has been
established. The primary issue before this court is whether
the Plaintiff has demonstrated a good arguable case
against the Administrators, sufficient to meet the threshold
for granting a Mareva Injunction.

[137] The Plaintiff’s case rests on several grounds. It argues that

Zafer, as President and Group Managing Director of the
Plaintiff, was in a position of significant influence and
authority, particularly in relation to the disbursement of the
Loan to Aries. The Plaintiff submits that Zafer, in breach of
his fiduciary duties, approved conditions precedent to the
Loan disbursement to Aries, resulting in detriment to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further argues that its claim is
supported by evidence from independent investigations
conducted by PwC Consulting and the Plaintiff’s own
investigations, which identified irregularities in Zafer’s
conduct. The Plaintiff maintains that these investigations
provide credible evidence of the fraud, establishing a good

66
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 arguable case against Zafer and, by extension, the
administrators of his estate.

[138] The Administrators counter these assertions by arguing that

Zafer was not the sole decision-maker in the Plaintiff’s
governance structure, and that other senior officers were
involved in the assessment and approval of the Loan. They
argue that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that Zafer
breached any fiduciary duties, and contend that the
evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is insufficient to support
the claim of the Alleged Fraud Scheme. The Adminstrators
also rely on the absence of any findings by the MACC
implicating Zafer in the alleged fraudulent activities.

[139] In considering these submissions, I find that the Plaintiff has

satisfied the threshold for establishing a good arguable case
against the Administrators. The legal test for a good
arguable case does not require the plaintiff to show that it
has a case so strong as to warrant summary judgment or
even a strong prima facie case. What is required, rather, is
that the plaintiff show that there is a credible basis to its
claim, meaning that there must be more than a mere
possibility of success, but not necessarily a probability of
success. It is sufficient if the plaintiff can show that, based
on the available evidence, there is a fair chance of obtaining
judgment against the Administrators. This threshold, as
articulated in Biasamas Sdn Bhd, is met where the plaintiff
can demonstrate that the case is more than merely capable

67
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 of serious argument, but it need not have a better than 50%
chance of success.

[140] The evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including the

findings from PwC Consulting and the Plaintiff’s own
investigations, provides a clear and robust basis to
conclude that there were significant irregularities in Zafer’s
conduct, especially concerning the disbursement of loans to
Aries. The PwC report highlights multiple instances where
Zafer, in his capacity as President and Group Managing
Director, approved disbursements despite the non-
fulfillment of key conditions precedent. This is particularly
evident in the decision to waive those conditions on two
separate occasions, both immediately prior to the
disbursements, without proper justification or explanation.
These waivers were critical in facilitating the release of
RM400 million to Aries, despite red flags raised by the
Plaintiff’s internal risk assessments and independent
consultant reports, which questioned the viability of the
Project and the financial soundness of Aries.

[141] Moreover, the Plaintiff’s own internal investigations

corroborate PwC's findings, pointing to a pattern of conduct
by Zafer that deviated from established protocols designed
to safeguard the Plaintiff’s financial interests. Specifically, it
was found that Zafer approved the Loan disbursements
knowing that Aries had not met the necessary financial
prerequisites, such as providing sufficient proof of cash
injection or substantiated financial statements. These

68
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 failures were further compounded by the replacement of
Huawei as the turnkey contractor without the Plaintiff’s
approval, a move authorised by Zafer that severely
compromised the Plaintiff’s security and the Project’s
integrity.

[142] The Adminstrators have sought to downplay Zafer’s role,

asserting that he was not solely responsible for the
disbursement decisions, which they claim involved other
senior management figures. However, this argument does
not negate the fact that Zafer, as the Plaintiff’s chief
executive, wielded considerable influence and authority in
the decision-making process. His position of leadership
placed him at the forefront of the Plaintiff’s governance
structure, and his approvals, even if not exclusive, were
central to the process of disbursing the loans. The Plaintiff
has demonstrated through documented communications
and internal memos that Zafer played a critical role in
pushing through the disbursements despite the unresolved
financial concerns surrounding Aries.

[143] Thus, while the Administrators argue that other officers

were involved, the evidence makes clear that Zafer’s
actions were not merely incidental but were instrumental in
facilitating the Alleged Fraud Scheme. Whether or not he
acted in concert with others, his individual actions
significantly contributed to the improper disbursement of
funds. These findings are not speculative assertions but are
instead supported by concrete documentary evidence from

69
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 both PwC and the Plaintiff’s internal investigation,
establishing a credible and plausible link between Zafer’s
conduct and the financial loss suffered by the Plaintiff.

[144] Furthermore, the absence of any findings from the MACC

does not undermine the Plaintiff’s claim. The Administrators
have asserted that the lack of prosecution or findings
against Zafer by the MACC should be taken as evidence of
his innocence in relation to the alleged fraudulent activities.
However, the Administrators have failed to produce any
concrete evidence or formal documentation to substantiate
this claim of exoneration. The mere absence of a formal
charge or investigation conclusion by the MACC does not
equate to an exoneration, nor does it absolve Zafer or the
Administrators of liability in this civil matter. In fact, the
standard of proof in criminal investigations such as those
conducted by the MACC differs significantly from that
required in civil proceedings. The Plaintiff need not
demonstrate criminal culpability to succeed in its claim; it
must only establish a good arguable case based on the
available evidence.

[145] In this context, it is crucial to recognise that the MACC's

jurisdiction is limited to criminal matters, specifically related
to corruption and public sector offences. This case,
however, involves complex commercial fraud, breach of
fiduciary duties, and civil claims, which extend beyond the
scope of the MACC’s investigative powers. Even in the
absence of MACC findings, the Plaintiff’s case stands on its

70
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 own merits. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff, which
includes the detailed and independent investigations
conducted by PwC Consulting, is compelling. These
investigations unearthed substantial irregularities in the
Loan disbursement process to Aries, implicating Zafer in
key decisions that were in breach of established protocols.
Additionally, the Plaintiff’s own internal review, which
corroborates PwC’s findings, reveals a pattern of conduct
by Zafer that facilitated the improper release of funds.

[146] The Administrators’ reliance on the absence of MACC

findings as a central defence overlooks the fact that civil
proceedings operate under a different legal framework and
standard of proof. While the MACC may have chosen not to
pursue criminal charges, this does not preclude the
possibility that Zafer’s actions were nonetheless in breach
of his fiduciary duties and involved in the facilitation the
Alleged Fraud Scheme. The evidence before this court,
including the comprehensive reports from PwC and the
Plaintiff’s internal investigations, remains credible and
unchallenged by any substantive rebuttal from the
Administrators. This evidence is sufficient to establish a
good arguable case against the Administrators, irrespective
of the absence of findings from the MACC. Therefore, the
Plaintiff’s case remains intact, bolstered by substantial
documentary and investigative support that goes beyond
mere speculative assertions.

71
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [147] In conclusion, I find that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a
good arguable case against the Administrators, based on
the credible evidence of irregularities in Zafer’s conduct in
relation to the Loan disbursement. While the Administrators
have raised arguments challenging the sufficiency of the
Plaintiff’s evidence, these arguments do not displace the
fact that the Plaintiff has met the threshold required to
establish a good arguable case. Accordingly, I hold in
favour of the Plaintiff on this issue.

Risk of dissipation

[148] The Plaintiff submits that there is a real risk of dissipation of

assets by the Administrators. The Plaintiff relies on the fact
that the late Zafer, the deceased, was involved in certain
questionable financial dealings prior to his passing, arguing
that this casts doubt on the Adminstrators’ ability to
transparently manage the estate. The Plaintiff further
contends that this lack of trustworthiness increases the
likelihood of dissipation, warranting the need for a Mareva
Injunction to prevent the Administrators from removing or
disposing of the estate’s assets before judgment is
rendered. Despite the Adminstrators’ assurances and
undertakings, the Plaintiff maintains that such allegations of
impropriety justify the requested injunction.

[149] The Administrators submit that there is no real risk of asset

dissipation, emphasising their transparent handling of the
estate’s affairs and their consistent cooperation with the

72
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 court and the Plaintiff. They have provided detailed
affidavits, including Enclosure 368, outlining the estate's
assets and financial transactions, as well as a written
undertaking not to dispose of any assets pending the court’s
decision. The Administrators argue that the Plaintiff’s
reliance on past allegations against Zafer, now deceased, is
irrelevant to the current proceedings. They contend that
their transparency, methodical management, and provision
of court assurances eliminate any basis for suggesting a
risk of dissipation, making the Mareva Injunction
unnecessary.

[150] Ultimately, following a comprehensive examination of the

evidence, my conclusion is that although the Plaintiff has
established a good arguable case, the Plaintiff has not
established that there is a potential dissipation of assets by
the said defendants.

[151] The Administrators have demonstrated a consistent and

transparent approach in fulfilling their role as administrators
of the estate of the late Zafer. They have adhered to the
undertakings provided, as evidenced by the affidavit at
Enclosure 368, which details the assets under the estate’s
management. This affidavit, beyond listing the assets, also
provides a comprehensive overview of the estate’s financial
movements, including payments made to the Inland
Revenue Board (IRB) for tax obligations, as well as the
payment of children’s school fees. These transactions
demonstrate that the estate’s finances are being handled in

73
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 a methodical and responsible manner. Furthermore, the
Administrators have disclosed other estate-related
expenses, including payments for utilities and routine costs
associated with managing the estate. The affidavit also
specifies that a substantial portion of the funds was directed
toward necessary expenditures, such as the legal fees
incurred for ongoing litigation involving the estate. In
addition, payments made to the IRB, in particular, indicate
the Administrators’ ongoing compliance with statutory
requirements, further solidifying the argument that there is
no risk of dissipation of assets. This responsible conduct,
coupled with their proactive disclosure of financial
movements, highlights the lack of any intent or risk of
concealing or depleting the estate's assets in anticipation of
the Plaintiff’s claims.

[152] In the case of Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v Lee Yee Wuen, the
Court of Appeal emphasised that the mere possibility or
general suspicion of asset dissipation is insufficient. The
court requires direct evidence or circumstances that support
an inference of a real risk of dissipation. In this case, the
Adminstrators have not only cooperated fully with the
Plaintiff’s requests but have also meticulously documented
their financial transactions.

[153] Moreover, the Administrators’ actions, particularly in relation

to the administration of the estate, align with the judicial
caution against using Mareva Injunctions in an oppressive
manner. This principle was emphasised in Tsoi Ping Kwan v

74
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Loh Lai Ngoh [1997] 3 CLJ 552, where the Court of Appeal
warned that Mareva Injunctions should not be employed as
tools of oppression. In the present case, the Administrators
have adhered to their responsibilities, providing
comprehensive disclosure of the estate’s assets, including
those detailed in affidavits like Enclosure 368. They have
continued to maintain transparency in their actions,
particularly by filing affidavits outlining the management of
the estate’s funds and their dealings with statutory
obligations, such as payments to the Inland Revenue
Board. Thus, absent convincing evidence that suggests a
real risk of dissipation, a Mareva Injunction, which imposes
severe financial constraints, would be inappropriate and
unjustified. The injunction must not serve as a preemptive
measure to punish or restrict the lawful administration of the
estate, particularly when there is no clear indication that the
Administrators are attempting to evade potential judgment
or engage in asset dissipation.

[154] The Adminstrators’ ongoing cooperation and methodical

management of the estate’s affairs, including their provision
of a written undertaking to not dispose of the estate's assets
pending the disposal of this action, significantly reduces the
perceived risk of asset dissipation. The written undertaking
provided by the Administrators here further diminishes any
claims of potential asset dissipation and justifying the
court’s reluctance to grant a Mareva Injunction without solid
evidence of such risk.

75
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [155] The Plaintiff’s reliance on allegations of a lack of probity and
honesty as a determining factor for risk of dissipation is
insufficient in this context, especially given the
Adminstrators’ transparent handling of the estate’s affairs
and their willingness to provide assurances to the court. In
any case, allegations of a lack of probity and honesty would
relate to Zafer, whose passing has taken this issue out of
play.

[156] In conclusion, the court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
provide sufficient solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation
of assets by the Administrators. Their conduct as
administrators, their transparent dealings with the estate’s
assets, and their compliance with legal requirements and
court orders do not substantiate the fears of asset
dissipation. Therefore, in the absence of a demonstrable
real risk of dissipation of assets, the court dismisses the
Plaintiff’s application for a Mareva Injunction against the
Administrators under Enclosure 106. Costs of RM40,000.00
are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 28th and 29th
Defendants.

ENCLOSURE 349

The Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 349

[157] The Plaintiff has applied for a Mareva Injunction against the
1st Defendant, Sidqi. The application seeks to restrain Sidqi
from removing or disposing of assets up to the value of

76
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 RM5,500,000.00, both within Malaysia and worldwide.
Additionally, it requires Sidqi to disclose comprehensive
information about all assets held globally within 14 days,
while permitting a monthly allowance of RM10,000 for living
expenses and legal representation. The order is to remain
in force until the disposal of the Writ and Statement of Claim
or until further order of this court.

[158] The grounds for this application stem from the Plaintiff’s
discovery of irregularities following a default on the Loan.
The Plaintiff alleges that approximately RM8,000,000.00 or
RM5,500,000.00 was improperly transferred to a Singapore
bank account controlled by Sidqi in connection with the
Loan's approval and disbursement. Given the international
nature of the alleged fraud and Sidqi’s Malaysian
citizenship, the Plaintiff contends that there is a real risk of
asset dissipation. The Plaintiff asserts it has a good
arguable case against the defendants in this action and has
provided the requisite undertaking as to damages.

Analysis and findings of the court

Good arguable case

[159] In the present application for a Mareva Injunction, the

Plaintiff seeks to demonstrate that it has a good arguable
case against Sidqi in respect of the claim. The Plaintiff’s
case is premised on allegations of bribery and the Alleged
Fraud Scheme, primarily involving the misappropriation of

77
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 the Loan which was substantial loan and intended for the
Project. The Plaintiff contends that Sidqi knowingly received
or assisted in the unlawful transfer of funds related to this
alleged fraudulent activity.

[160] The Plaintiff asserts that the Loan Sum of RM400 million,
meant to finance the Project, was siphoned out to various
defendants, including Sidqi. Specific reference is made to
the receipt of approximately SGD2 million by Sidqi in a
Singaporean bank account, purportedly on behalf of Zafer,
a key figure allegedly orchestrating the fraud. The Plaintiff
further claims that Sidqi’s involvement in these transactions,
as corroborated by affidavit evidence from Adah and
Ranjeet, demonstrates a knowing receipt of the Plaintiff’s
monies, which forms the foundation of the Plaintiff’s claim.

[161] Sidqi, in response, has raised several defences. His

counsel argues that the Plaintiff has not established a good
arguable case, citing inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s
evidence, particularly in Adah’s affidavits. Additionally, Sidqi
maintains that he acted at the request of Zafer without
knowledge of the fraudulent purposes and that the Plaintiff’s
case is based on events that occurred over a decade ago,
with no contemporaneous evidence to suggest that Sidqi
acted dishonestly.

[162] In evaluating these submissions, the court acknowledges

that the threshold for establishing a good arguable case in
the context of a Mareva Injunction is not high. As affirmed in

78
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Biasamas Sdn Bhd, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate a
strong prima facie case or a case that is likely to succeed at
trial. Rather, the Plaintiff must show that its claim is “more
than barely capable of serious argument” and that there is a
fair chance of obtaining judgment against Sidqi.

[163] The evidence provided by the Plaintiff includes Adah’s

affidavit, which implicates Sidqi in the transfer of substantial
funds. Adah’s affidavit describes how RM5.5 million was
transferred into a Singaporean bank account controlled by
Sidqi, allegedly as part of the broader misappropriation of
the Loan intended for the Project. While there are some
discrepancies in Adah’s account, the Plaintiff contends that
these are minor and do not undermine the core facts
showing Sidqi’s role in receiving and transferring funds. The
Plaintiff also submits supporting documentary evidence,
such as bank records and emails, which align with Adah’s
version of events.

[164] Although Sidqi challenges the reliability of Adah’s testimony

and asserts that his role was limited and without knowledge
of the fraudulent nature of the funds, the Plaintiff points to
his own admission that he received approximately SGD2
million in his Singapore bank account at Zafer’s request.
While Sidqi claims that he acted without knowledge of the
underlying fraud, his admission of receiving and transferring
significant sums raises questions that warrant further
examination.

79
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [165] At this interlocutory stage, the court concludes that while the
evidence of fraud is contested and not fully substantiated,
the Plaintiff has shown a sufficient basis to argue that Sidqi
may have had some involvement in the transfer of funds
related to the Loan. However, the Plaintiff’s case,
particularly on the issue of Sidqi’s knowledge and
participation in the Alleged Fraud Scheme, remains subject
to further scrutiny at trial.

[166] In light of the relatively low threshold for establishing a good

arguable case, and given that the Plaintiff’s evidence,
though challenged, raises legitimate questions regarding
Sidqi’s involvement, the court finds that the Plaintiff has
demonstrated a case that is more than speculative and is
capable of serious argument. However, it must be noted
that the evidence does not yet conclusively point to knowing
receipt or dishonest conduct on Sidqi’s part, but rather
indicates issues that require further investigation.

[167] Therefore, the court finds that the Plaintiff has established a
sufficient arguable case against Sidqi to warrant the
continuation of proceedings, though the exact nature of
Sidqi’s involvement remains unclear and will need to be
addressed at trial.

Risk of dissipation

[168] The Plaintiff submits that Sidqi was involved in the Alleged
Fraud Scheme dating back to 2012, where he allegedly

80
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 facilitated the payment of RM8 million to Zafer in connection
with the Loan disbursement from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
argues that this past act of dishonesty raises concerns
about Sidqi’s probity and presents a real risk that he may
dissipate his assets to evade potential liabilities. Despite
discovering Sidqi's involvement in July 2022, the Plaintiff
waited until March 2023 to file this Mareva application,
attributing the delay to the complexity of the case and the
ongoing investigation. The Plaintiff contends that the gravity
of the past conduct, coupled with Sidqi's involvement in
corporate entities, necessitates the freesing of his assets to
prevent judgment being frustrated.

[169] Sidqi submits that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any
real or present risk of dissipation of assets, as the
allegations are based on events that occurred more than a
decade ago. He argues that his current circumstances,
including his residency in Malaysia with his family and his
local business interests, indicate a stable presence within
the jurisdiction, with no evidence suggesting he intends to
evade liabilities. Sidqi also highlights the Plaintiff’s
unexplained eight-month delay in filing the Mareva
application, which contradicts the urgency typically required
for such an injunction. He asserts that the delay undermines
the Plaintiff’s claim of a real risk of dissipation, and without
concrete evidence connecting past conduct to a present
threat, the application must fail.

81
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [170] Having carefully weighed all the evidence and arguments
presented, I am compelled to hold that the Plaintiff has not
established that there is a potential dissipation of assets by
Sidqi.

[171] The Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to

demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of Sidqi's assets.
Central to this failure is the over-reliance on an incident
from over a decade ago, specifically an alleged payment in
2012. This allegation of dishonesty, relating to Sidqi's
involvement in the receipt of RM8 million, while serious,
remains insufficient to meet the contemporaneous nature
required for a Mareva Injunction.

[172] The Plaintiff's submissions rest on the assertion that this

past conduct alone suffices to show Sidqi's lack of probity
and raises a real risk of asset dissipation. However, the
evidence supporting this assertion is flawed. First, the
explanation provided by Sidqi - namely that he received the
funds at the behest of Zafer, who did not disclose the
purpose of the payment - casts significant doubt on the
allegation of dishonesty. This explanation was not
effectively rebutted by the Plaintiff, leading to the conclusion
that there is no solid evidence of wrongdoing on Sidqi's
part. Furthermore, the Plaintiff relies heavily on affidavits,
particularly those by Adah, which are marred by
inconsistencies. For instance, while Adah initially claimed
that she needed to contact Sidqi to meet with Zafer, she
later stated that she met with Zafer directly. This

82
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 inconsistency further undermines the reliability of the
Plaintiff’s evidence.

[173] Beyond these weaknesses, the Plaintiff has failed to show

how this alleged dishonesty, which took place over a
decade ago, has any bearing on the present risk of asset
dissipation. The nature of the alleged conduct does not
provide the court with solid or direct evidence of a real and
immediate threat to the assets that would justify the
imposition of a Mareva Injunction.

[174] Sidqi has provided substantial evidence of his established

ties to Malaysia, reinforcing his commitment to remain
within the jurisdiction and fulfill any potential legal
obligations. His evidence highlights that he resides in
Malaysia with his immediate family, including his wife and
children, further cementing his rootedness in the country.
Additionally, Sidqi has disclosed his business interests,
including directorships and assets located within Malaysia,
which provide a transparent account of his financial
dealings.

[175] This transparency and stability in Sidqi's personal and

professional life work against any inference of a genuine
and present risk of asset dissipation. His willingness to
disclose his assets and local ties indicates that he does not
intend to evade potential liabilities by moving or hiding his
assets elsewhere. The Plaintiff has failed to establish how
Sidqi's past conduct, specifically the alleged dishonest

83
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 payment from 2012, has any direct relevance to his current
or future behavior. The Plaintiff's reliance on historical
conduct, without establishing a real-time or ongoing risk, is
insufficient to satisfy the legal thresholds for a Mareva
Injunction.

[176] The principles enshrined in cases like Lee Kai Wuen v Lee
Yee Wuen and Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier v Accent
Delight International Ltd reiterate the need for solid and
contemporaneous evidence of a real risk of asset
dissipation. In those cases, it was clearly established that
only when dishonesty directly impacts the current risk of
dissipation can a court infer such a risk. Sidqi’s case lacks
such clear evidence. The Plaintiff's failure to connect the
past conduct to a present and immediate risk means that
the application for a Mareva Injunction must be rejected.

[177] The cases cited by the Plaintiff do not sufficiently align with
Sidqi’s circumstances, as the Plaintiff relied on instances
where dishonesty was clear and directly implicated in asset
dissipation, which is not evident here. The cases referenced
by the Plaintiff, such as Ang Chee Huat v Engelback
Thomas Joseph, involved conflicting documents, including a
letter and a declaration of trust that directly contradicted the
defendant’s defence and affidavits. Similarly, in Petowa
Jaya Sdn Bhd v Binaan Nasional Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ
261 (Court of Appeal), the defendant had wrongly detained
and used the plaintiff’s equipment without consent, as well

84
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 as 98% of the progress payments, both of which were
undisputed acts of dishonesty.

[178] These cases presented clear and severe instances of

misconduct, which justified the courts' decisions. However,
Sidqi’s conduct does not mirror the gravity of these
situations. Sidqi has consistently provided an explanation
for the RM8 million payment, claiming it was received on the
instruction of Zafer, without any knowledge of its purpose.
This explanation has not been effectively challenged by the
Plaintiff. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence of
dishonesty in Sidqi's actions that would support the
inference of a risk of asset dissipation.

[179] The Plaintiff's reliance on Amixco Asia Pte Ltd v Bank

Negara Indonesia 1946 [1991] 2 SLR (Singapore Court of
Appeal) and Honsaico Trading Ltd v Hong Yian Seng Co
Ltd Honsaico Trading Ltd v Hong Yian Seng Co Ltd [1990]
HKCU 429 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal) is similarly
misplaced, as these cases involved more direct evidence of
misconduct. In Amixco Asia, the defendant had caused or
procured a false bill of lading for personal benefit, while in
Honsaico Trading, the defendant diverted a large quantity of
rice to a third party in a manner that involved blatant
dishonesty. Sidqi’s situation lacks the same degree of
misconduct, making these cases factually distinguishable
from his own.

85
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 [180] The Plaintiff’s unexplained delay of eight months in filing
this Mareva application against Sidqi is significant and
undermines their argument of urgency. The Plaintiff’s
submissions indicate that the Plaintiff was aware of Sidqi's
alleged involvement by July 2022, when Adah filed her first
affidavit implicating Sidqi. Despite this, the Plaintiff waited
until November 2022 to file an application to amend its writ
to include Sidqi, and even then, this application was not
filed on a certificate of urgency, reflecting a lack of
immediacy or concern about any real risk of dissipation at
that time.

[181] The Plaintiff’s timeline reveals further delays after the

amendment was allowed in December 2022, with a two-
week gap between the court’s grant of the amendment and
the filing of the Re-Amended Writ and Amended Statement
of Claim. Even after the Sidqi entered his appearance in
February 2023, the Plaintiff took an additional month to file
the Mareva application in March 2023.

[182] These delays cast doubt on the Plaintiff’s claims of a real

and immediate risk of dissipation. The court must consider
whether the Plaintiff truly believes that Sidqi’s assets are at
risk of being dissipated, or whether the delay undermines
this claim. It is clear from the chronology that the Plaintiff’s
conduct lacks the urgency typically required for a Mareva
Injunction, which is a remedy intended to act swiftly to
prevent irreparable harm. Furthermore, no cogent

86
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 explanation has been offered for this delay, which, as a
result, severely weakens the Plaintiff’s application.

[183] Accordingly, Enclosure 349 is dismissed. Costs of

RM40,000.00 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st
Defendant.

SETTING ASIDE EX PARTE INJUNCTION ORDER IN

ENCLOSURE 35

Enclosure 44 (3rd, 5th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th Defendants)

Enclosure 117 (12th and 26th Defendant)

Enclosure 158 (2nd Defendant)

The application in Enclosure 44

[184] In Enclosure 44, the 5th Defendant and the 15th to 17th
Defendants (Abdul Wahid, Paneagle Holdings, Paneagel
and VCB Investment) filed an application to set aside the Ex
Parte Injunction Order dated 4.7.2022. This application is
made pursuant to Order 29 Rule 1(2A) and/or (2B) of the
Rules of Court 2012, along with Order 92 Rule 4. These
defendants seek several orders, including the setting aside
of the Ex Parte Injunction Order in its entirety, an
assessment of any losses or damages incurred as a result
of the injunction, and costs to be borne by the Plaintiff.

87
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Additionally, these defendants request any other relief
deemed just by the court.

[185] The grounds for this application are primarily centered on

alleged procedural and substantive flaws in the Plaintiff’s
conduct during the ex-parte application process. These
defendants assert that the Plaintiff failed to disclose material
facts as required under the Rules of Court 2012, particularly
in relation to an earlier Summary Judgment application in
Suit 313. They argue that there was no urgent basis for the
ex-parte application since the Plaintiff had long been aware
of the alleged misconduct, dating back to 2019 when the
receivers and managers took over. These defendants
further contend that no evidence was presented to establish
that they were flight risks or that they would dissipate
assets. Moreover, they point out that the said defendants
include long-established companies whose businesses
would be irreparably harmed by the Mareva Injunction, and
that Abdul Wahid, appointed in 2018, had no direct
involvement in the issuance of the Loan. Based on these
grounds, the said defendants maintain that the Ex Parte
Injunction Order should be set aside.

The application in Enclosure 117

[186] In Enclosure 117, the 12th and 26th Defendants (Tunku

Mazlina and Zavarco PLC) have filed an application to set
aside the Ex Parte Injunction Order dated 4.7.2022. The
application is made under Order 29 Rule 1(2A) and/or (2B)

88
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 of the Rules of Court 2012, Order 92 Rule 4, and the
inherent jurisdiction of the court. The said defendants seek
to have the injunction order set aside in its entirety, along
with an assessment of any losses or damages incurred due
to the injunction.

[187] The grounds for the application rest on the said defendants'
contention that Zavarco PLC is a UK-incorporated public
limited company and is not related to the other corporate
defendants in the case, as evidenced by the Plaintiff's own
corporate structure allegations. Additionally, Tunku Mazlina
only became a director of Zavarco PLC in 2014, well after
the events in question. The said defendants argue that the
Plaintiff's claims of “waiver of conditions precedent” and the
“waiver of the joint completion guarantee” fail to include any
specific allegations of misconduct against the said
defendants. Therefore, they contend that the Ex Parte
Injunction Order should be set aside as there is no sufficient
basis for its application to them.

The application in Enclosure 158

[188] In Enclosure 158, the 2nd Defendant, Shailen, has filed an

application to set aside the Ex Parte Injunction Order dated
4.7.2022. The application is made under Order 29 Rule
1(2A) and/or (2B) of the Rules of Court 2012, Order 92 Rule
4, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Shailen seeks to
have the injunction set aside in its entirety, along with an

89
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 assessment of any losses or damages incurred as a result
of the injunction.

[189] The grounds for this application are based on several key
points. First, Shailen asserts that the Plaintiff has not
provided sufficient particulars regarding his involvement in
the alleged causes of action, rendering the claims vague
and unsupported. Second, the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated an arguable case to justify the granting of the
Mareva Injunction. Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to
show that Shailen is a flight risk or that there is any real
danger of him dissipating assets. Lastly, Shailen contends
that the balance of probability does not support the
continuation of the injunction, arguing that the Plaintiff’s
case is weak and does not warrant such extraordinary relief.
Based on these grounds, Shailen submits that the Ex Parte
Injunction Order should be set aside.

Analysis and findings of the court

[190] The said defendants in respect of the applications

(Enclosures 44, 117 and 158) for the setting aside of the Ex
Parte Mareva Order in Enclosure 35 were represented by
the same firm of solicitors and filed common Written
Submissions argued by the same counsel.

[191] Having carefully weighed all the evidence and arguments

presented, I am compelled to hold that Enclosure 44,

90
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Enclosure 117 and Enclosure 158 are dismissed. I address
my grounds for dismissing these applications below.

[192] An argument put forward by the said defendants in relation

to the setting aside of the Ex Parte Injunction Order was
that the allegation of risk of dissipation of assets was
unproven at this juncture, as there had been no legal action
taken against the defendants for any alleged wrongdoings,
and because the Plaintiff had not provided sufficient
evidence of any imminent risk of the defendants dissipating
their assets. The defendants emphasised that mere
allegations of fraud or conspiracy, without tangible proof of
ongoing or likely dissipation, do not meet the threshold
required to sustain an injunction of this nature. They relied
on the precedent established in Lee Kai Wuen & Anor v Lee
Yee Wuen [supra], wherein the Court of Appeal emphasised
that an injunction such as this requires concrete evidence
that assets were at risk of being disposed of or transferred
in a manner that would frustrate the execution of a
judgment.

[193] In the Lee Kai Wuen case, the Court of Appeal set aside the
Mareva Injunction due to the absence of direct evidence
that the assets were likely to be dissipated. The payments
in that case were fully documented, and there was no
indication that the defendants had acted dishonestly with
respect to their asset management. The defendants in the
present case analogised their situation to Lee Kai Wuen,
arguing that their assets were similarly documented, and

91
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 there was no demonstrated dishonesty or improper conduct
regarding asset management at the time of the injunction's
issuance. They contended that the Plaintiff’s failure to show
any immediate or imminent risk of asset dissipation - such
as evidence of assets being hidden, transferred, or sold -
undermined the need for an injunction.

[194] The defendants also pointed out that they had cooperated
fully in prior dealings, and there had been no indication of
any steps taken by them to undermine or evade potential
enforcement action. Moreover, they argued that any risk of
dissipation should be assessed based on present
circumstances and not solely on past allegations. They
further submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to distinguish
between the assets legitimately owned by the defendants
and those allegedly involved in the Alleged Fraud Scheme.
As such, the defendants urged the court to follow the
rationale in Lee Kai Wuen, where the Mareva Injunction was
set aside due to the lack of evidence proving a real and
substantial risk of asset dissipation.

[195] However, what was set aside by the Court of Appeal in Lee
Kai Wuen was the Mareva Injunction granted after an inter
partes hearing in the High Court, not an ex parte Mareva
Injunction order. The defendants overlooked this distinction,
as the ex parte nature of the injunction inherently relies on a
different threshold of evidence and urgency. In the context
of an ex parte injunction, the urgency of the matter justifies
the lower threshold of proof required to demonstrate a risk

92
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 of dissipation. Therefore, the finding that there was no risk
of dissipation after a more comprehensive inter partes
hearing is not, in itself, a sufficient reason to set aside the
Ex Parte Injunction Order.

[196] While I have found that the risk of dissipation has not been
adequately established by the Plaintiff for the purposes of
allowing the substantive Mareva Injunction, this does not
negate the Plaintiff’s reasonable apprehension at the time
of applying for the Ex Parte Injunction Order. The threshold
for obtaining an ex parte injunction is significantly lower than
that for a substantive Mareva Injunction, and it is not
necessary for the Plaintiff to provide conclusive evidence of
asset dissipation. Instead, it suffices for the Plaintiff to
demonstrate that there is a legitimate concern or a credible
threat that the defendants may take steps to dissipate their
assets before the inter partes hearing. In this case, the
Plaintiff has presented detailed allegations of fraudulent
conduct and financial irregularities, which, at the time of the
ex parte application, raised reasonable concerns about the
defendants’ intentions regarding their assets.

[197] The Plaintiff provided substantial evidence of alleged

wrongdoings by the defendants, which included a complex
web of conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff through various
corporate entities and individuals. The Plaintiff alleged that
funds from the Loan, which was intended to finance the
Project, were unlawfully siphoned off by the defendants to
unrelated parties and offshore accounts. In particular, the

93
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Plaintiff highlighted suspicious and unexplained payments
made by the defendants, which lacked any legitimate
business justification and were indicative of dishonest
conduct. These payments, as outlined in the Plaintiff's
submissions, included large transfers to entities connected
to the defendants, with no corresponding work or services
provided in return. Such payments suggested that the said
defendants had engaged in the misappropriation of funds,
thus raising concerns that they might continue to dissipate
assets to evade liability.

[198] Furthermore, the Plaintiff pointed to the said defendants’

lack of transparency and their efforts to conceal the true
nature of these payments, which added to the reasonable
apprehension that the assets might be dissipated in the
interim. The said defendants’ alleged actions, including their
failure to explain the nature and destination of the siphoned
funds and the use of offshore accounts, created a sufficient
degree of mistrust regarding their handling of assets. This
lack of probity and the defendants' pattern of dishonest
conduct were material considerations that justified the
Plaintiff's fear that, unless the Ex Parte Injunction Order was
granted, the defendants might seek to remove or conceal
their assets before a judgment could be obtained.

[199] Therefore, even though the risk of dissipation might not

have been definitively proven for the substantive Mareva
Injunction, the Plaintiff’s apprehension at the time of the ex
parte application was based on reasonable and credible

94
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 grounds. The Plaintiff’s evidence, though circumstantial,
painted a picture of fraudulent behavior and financial
misconduct that warranted the granting of urgent ex parte
relief to prevent the possible dissipation of assets pending
the outcome of the full hearing. Thus, the Plaintiff’s concern,
supported by the allegations of conspiracy, siphoning of
funds, and unexplained payments, was sufficient to meet
the lower threshold required for obtaining the Ex Parte
Injunction Order.

[200] Given the considerable sums involved, amounting to

hundreds of millions of ringgit, and the international scope
of the alleged dealings, it was entirely reasonable for the
Plaintiff to hold the view that there was a continuing and
imminent danger that the said defendants would dissipate
their assets to avoid any future judgment or liability. The
Plaintiff had detailed a sophisticated scheme involving the
movement of funds across multiple jurisdictions, including
transfers to offshore entities and accounts in countries such
as the British Virgin Islands and Samoa. The use of these
offshore vehicles, as highlighted in the Plaintiff's
submissions, demonstrated that the defendants were not
only capable of but had already engaged in transactions
designed to obscure the true nature and destination of the
assets.

[201] Moreover, the Plaintiff pointed to the international nature of

the said defendants' corporate structure and financial
dealings, which involved various layers of holding

95
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 companies and subsidiaries spread across different
countries, making it difficult to trace or recover assets once
they were transferred. The Plaintiff submitted that many of
the corporate entities connected to the said defendants
were registered in jurisdictions with less stringent financial
oversight, further complicating the ability to track the flow of
funds and increasing the risk that the said defendants could
easily move their assets beyond the reach of the Malaysian
courts.

[202] In light of these factors, it was reasonable for the Plaintiff to

conclude that the said defendants, if given notice of the
injunction application, might take immediate steps to
conceal or dissipate their assets by transferring them to
foreign jurisdictions where enforcement would be more
challenging. The Plaintiff emphasised the speed with which
assets could be moved across borders, especially given the
digital and globalised nature of modern financial systems.
This reinforced the Plaintiff’s argument that the risk of
dissipation was not theoretical but real and pressing,
necessitating urgent action.

[203] The Plaintiff also referenced past conduct by the said

defendants that raised serious concerns about their
willingness to comply with legal obligations. For instance,
there were allegations of previous attempts to siphon funds
through dubious transactions, including fictitious payments
to related entities. This pattern of behavior, coupled with the
said defendants’ access to international financial networks,

96
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 indicated that the dissipation of assets was not only
possible but likely, should they be alerted to the Plaintiff’s
intentions.

[204] Given these circumstances, it was entirely justifiable for the

Plaintiff to seek the Mareva Injunction on an ex parte basis,
without giving the said defendants prior notice. The urgency
of the situation, combined with the international reach and
complexity of the said defendants’ dealings, meant that any
delay could have resulted in irreparable harm to the
Plaintiff’s ability to enforce a judgment. The Plaintiff
reasonably feared that the said defendants would act swiftly
to frustrate the proceedings by moving their assets out of
jurisdiction, making it impossible to recover the sums owed.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s decision to pursue the injunction
without notice was not only justified but necessary to
preserve the integrity of the legal process and prevent the
said defendants from rendering themselves judgment-proof.

[205] The said defendants also argued that the Ex Parte

Injunction Order must be set aside because the allegations
brought against them were not directly relevant to the
Plaintiff’s primary claim and, in their view, lacked sufficient
legal basis or locus standi. The said defendants
emphasised that the Plaintiff’s claim arose from the Loan
disbursed years earlier for the development of a fiber optic
network, and the alleged siphoning of funds took place long
after the Loan disbursement. In the said defendants'
opinion, this significant gap in time rendered the Plaintiff’s

97
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 allegations illogical, as the timing of the purported fraudulent
transactions was not immediately connected to the initial
disbursement of the Loan. They contended that the
Plaintiff’s allegations lacked temporal proximity and
coherence, arguing that no clear link was established
between the disbursement of the Loan and the subsequent
alleged misconduct, which occurred years later. Thus, they
claimed that the Plaintiff was attempting to stretch its claim
far beyond the relevant time frame, weakening the logical
foundation of the case.

[206] The said defendants further argued that the Plaintiff was
already pursuing a defective claim against Paneagle
Holdings in relation to the same Loan. The Plaintiff had
initiated legal action against Paneagle Holdings, alleging
that it was responsible for the failure of the Project and the
mismanagement of the Loan proceeds. The said
defendants contended that the Plaintiff's primary avenue for
relief lay with Paneagle Holdings, as the entity most directly
involved in the contractual relationship concerning the Loan.
They argued that by bringing an additional claim against
them - who were not as directly linked to the Loan
agreement - the Plaintiff was effectively duplicating its
efforts, seeking to hold multiple parties accountable for the
same funds without clearly distinguishing their roles in the
Alleged Fraud Scheme.

[207] Moreover, the said defendants asserted that the Plaintiff

had already made substantial claims against Paneagle

98
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Holdings in its action related to the Loan, and therefore,
there were no further grounds to seek additional recovery
from them. In their view, the Plaintiff had failed to provide a
coherent justification for why it should be entitled to pursue
separate claims against the said defendants for sums that
were already being litigated against Paneagle Holdings.
This, according to the said defendants, made the Mareva
Injunction against them redundant and unjustifiable. They
argued that allowing the injunction to remain in place would
amount to an unfair and disproportionate measure, as the
Plaintiff was effectively using the Mareva Injunction to
freeze assets based on claims that had already been
accounted for in the ongoing proceedings against Paneagle
Holdings. Therefore, the said defendants urged the court to
set aside the Ex Parte Injunction Order, as it was premised
on claims that were either irrelevant or already being
addressed in separate legal proceedings.

[208] However, these issues raised by the defendants are

considerations that are more appropriately dealt with during
an inter partes hearing, where the merits of the injunction
can be fully scrutinised and debated. At an inter partes
hearing, the court would have the benefit of hearing both
sides in detail, allowing a more comprehensive assessment
of issues like the locus standi of the Plaintiff to bring claims
against the defendants, as well as the relevance of the
allegations made. The question of whether the Plaintiff has
a valid legal standing or whether the claims are logically
connected to the relief sought are precisely the kinds of

99
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 matters that typically arise at that stage. These are not
issues that are required to be determined conclusively at
the time of granting an ex parte order, where the court is
primarily concerned with whether there is an urgent and
prima facie case for interim relief to prevent potential
injustice.

[209] At the stage of applying for the Ex Parte Injunction Order,

the Plaintiff only needed to demonstrate a plausible and
prima facie case that assets were at risk of dissipation and
that immediate relief was essential to maintain the status
quo until the inter partes hearing. The Plaintiff submitted
sufficient initial evidence to raise a reasonable concern
about the dissipation of assets, particularly in light of serious
allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and unlawful diversion of
funds. Although this evidence was not conclusive, it was
credible enough to justify the court’s urgent intervention.
The court was not required at this early stage to resolve all
complexities of the case or fully engage with the legal
arguments raised by the defendants. Instead, the threshold
was whether there was an arguable case warranting the
issuance of the injunction.

[210] The Plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent conduct and the

misuse of corporate structures to siphon off Loan funds
provided a strong basis for the court to conclude that there
was a risk of dissipation if notice were given to the
defendants. The substantial sums involved and the multi-
jurisdictional dealings added to the Plaintiff's concerns.

100
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 While some of the defendants' arguments, such as the
timing of the alleged siphoning of funds or the connection to
Paneagle Holdings, might be persuasive at a later stage,
they were not sufficient grounds to set aside the Ex Parte
Injunction Order at this preliminary stage.

[211] The defendants’ contention that the claims against

Paneagle Holdings were defective or improbable are
matters for consideration at the inter partes hearing, where
both sides will fully present their cases. These arguments
pertain to the overall strength of the Plaintiff’s case and
whether the Plaintiff will ultimately prevail in securing a final
judgment. However, these issues do not detract from the
appropriateness of the Ex Parte Injunction Order at the time
it was granted. The purpose of such an injunction is to
provide temporary protection to prevent irreparable harm,
and the Plaintiff had demonstrated the necessity of this
protection based on the available evidence.

[212] Thus, the defendants’ arguments regarding the relevance of

the claims or the defective nature of the action against
Paneagle Holdings are matters best suited for a more
detailed, substantive hearing. They do not justify the setting
aside of the Ex Parte Injunction Order, which was properly
issued based on the Plaintiff's prima facie case and the
need for swift action to prevent asset dissipation.

101
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Conclusion

[213] In conclusion, after considering the applications in

Enclosures 44, 117, and 158, I find that the defendants
have not provided sufficient grounds to justify setting aside
the Ex Parte Injunction Order dated 4.7.2022. While their
arguments concerning the absence of a concrete risk of
asset dissipation may warrant further examination at the
inter partes stage, they do not meet the threshold for
overturning an ex parte order. The Plaintiff has presented
credible evidence that, at the time of the application, raised
reasonable concerns of asset dissipation, justifying the
court’s intervention to maintain the status quo. Accordingly,
the applications in Enclosures 44, 117, and 158 are
dismissed, with costs of RM15,000.00 to be borne by the
respective defendants for each enclosure.

25 September 2024

ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD

Judge
Kuala Lumpur High Court
(Commercial Division)

102
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 Counsel:

For the Plaintiff: Lim Chee Wee, Nathalie Ker Si

Min, Pang Huey Lynn, Charmaine
Choong and Saradha Lakshmi
(Messrs Lim Chee Wee
Partnership)

For the 1st Defendant: Chong Lip Yi with Eric Toh

(Messrs Robert Low & Ooi)

For the 2nd Defendant: James Ding Tse Wan

(Messrs CH Tay & Partners)

For the 3rd, 5th, 12th, Foo Joon Liang with Tan Min Lee
15th, 16th, 18th and 26th and Kho Jia Yuan
Defendants: (Messrs Gan Partnership)

For the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, Syamsul Azhar Ab Aziz with Sasha
9th, 11th, 17th, 22nd, 24th (Messrs Azhar Aziz & Associates)
and 25th Defendants:

For the 10th Defendant: Annou Xavier with Yong Jia Wei
(Messrs Azri, Lee Swee Seng &
Co.)

For the 13th Defendant: Syereen Tang

(Messrs Azri, Lee Swee Seng &
Co.)

For the 19th Defendant: Zack Lim

(Messrs Zack Lim)

103
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
 For the 23rd and 27th Dato Loh Siew Cheang with
Defendants: Muhammad Hiqmar Danial, Eizlan
Farhan Nakhrowi and Claudia
Nyon
(Messrs Tee Tai Tzian & Sim)

For the 28th and 29th Zulaikha Aini

Defendants: (Messrs Salehuddin Saidin &
Associates)

For the 30th Defendant: Genevieve Vanniasingham

(Messrs Shafee & Co.)

104
S/N a5koTOQbK0akWS48HG12Dg
**Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal