Corporate Fraud Lawyers in Malaysia
Our corporate fraud lawyers act for companies that have lost money or assets through fraud, and for directors and employees facing fraud or corruption allegations, in civil claims, urgent court orders and related police or MACC matters across Malaysia.
- Civil fraud claims
- Freezing and disclosure orders
- Advice for accused directors
- Online consultations
How We Can Help
- Civil claims to recover misappropriated company money
- Claims against directors for breach of their duties
- Mareva injunctions to freeze assets at risk
- Disclosure orders against banks to trace funds
- Advising directors and employees accused of fraud
- Section 17A adequate procedures and internal investigations
Explore related guides
Reviewed by Ms. Khoo Ai Theng, Founder, Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. Last updated October 2026.
Why Choose Us?
15+ Years
Legal experience
21 Days
Until an ex parte injunction lapses, Rules of Court 2012
Balance of Probabilities
Standard for proving civil fraud, Federal Court 2015
Civil and Criminal
Both routes assessed together at the outset
What is corporate fraud under Malaysian law?
Corporate fraud is dishonest conduct that costs a company money, property or business. It may be committed by a director, an employee, a business partner or an outsider, and in Malaysia it can lead to a civil claim, a criminal case, or both.
Civil claims include deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust and claims against those who knowingly received company funds. Under the Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), section 213 requires a director to act for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interest of the company, with reasonable care, skill and diligence. Section 218 bars a director or officer, without the approval of a general meeting, from using company property, information, position or opportunities, or competing with the company, to benefit themselves or others or to harm the company. A director who breaks the good-faith duty or section 218 also commits an offence carrying up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to RM3 million, or both.
Criminal breach of trust (sections 405 to 409) and cheating (sections 415 to 420) are offences under the Penal Code (Act 574). Where a business was carried on to defraud creditors, section 540 of the Companies Act 2016 lets the court make those knowingly involved personally liable for the company’s debts.
Corporate liability for bribery and money laundering
A company can itself be prosecuted for bribery committed for its benefit. Since 1 June 2020, section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 makes a commercial organisation liable if an associated person, such as a director, employee, agent or contractor, corruptly gives, offers or promises gratification to obtain or retain business or an advantage for it.
The penalty is a fine of at least ten times the value of the gratification or RM1 million, whichever is higher, or imprisonment of up to 20 years, or both. Directors, officers and managers are deemed to have committed the offence too, unless they prove it happened without their consent or connivance and that they exercised due diligence. The company’s defence is to prove it had adequate procedures in place. The government’s Guidelines on Adequate Procedures set out five TRUST principles: top-level commitment, risk assessment, undertaking control measures, systematic review, monitoring and enforcement, and training and communication.
Money laundering is an offence under section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613). Property linked to unlawful activity can be frozen, seized and forfeited, and third parties can apply to show why their interest should not be forfeited. We can review anti-bribery procedures under an advisory retainer.
Freezing, search and disclosure orders
Where money or evidence may disappear, the court can make urgent orders, often ex parte, before the other side is told.
- A Mareva injunction freezes a defendant’s assets up to a stated value. The applicant must show a good arguable case, assets within the jurisdiction and a real risk that they will be dissipated.
- A search order, also called an Anton Piller order, allows entry to premises to inspect and remove documents and devices. It requires an extremely strong prima facie case, clear evidence that the defendant holds incriminating material, and a real possibility that it will be destroyed.
- Bankers Trust and Norwich Pharmacal type orders compel a bank or other third party to disclose information showing where funds went or who is responsible. Pre-action discovery is available under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012.
The applicant must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including those that favour the other side, and usually gives an undertaking to pay damages if the order proves unjustified. Under Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012, an ex parte injunction lapses after 21 days, and the court fixes an inter partes hearing at which the defendant can challenge it. A carefully prepared affidavit matters, because a flawed order can be set aside.
How a corporate fraud claim runs, step by step
Most matters follow this sequence, though urgent cases compress the first steps into days.
- Secure the accounts, bank statements, emails, chat messages and device images.
- Identify the people, companies and assets involved.
- Decide whether to lodge a police report under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) or an MACC complaint alongside the civil claim.
- Apply for any freezing, search or disclosure orders.
- File the writ and statement of claim, then complete pleadings, case management and trial.
- Enforce the judgment through seizure, garnishee, bankruptcy or winding-up proceedings.
A civil fraud claim is proved on the balance of probabilities, as the Federal Court confirmed in Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd (2015). Contract and tort claims must generally be filed within six years under the Limitation Act 1953, but where a claim is based on fraud, time runs only from when the fraud was discovered or could reasonably have been discovered (section 29). Cost depends mainly on urgency, forensic accounting work, the number of defendants, assets abroad and whether there is a trial. If those in control will not act, a shareholder may seek the court’s leave to sue for the company under sections 347 and 348 of the Companies Act 2016, after 30 days’ written notice to the directors; see shareholder disputes.
First steps for companies, and for people accused
The first days often shape the outcome, whichever side you are on.
A company should plan any internal investigation with lawyers involved from the start, so that interviews, device imaging and forensic reviews are properly recorded and, where the law allows, protected by legal privilege. Keep the circle small, preserve original records and avoid confronting the suspect before the evidence is secure. If an employee is involved, suspension and any domestic inquiry must follow a fair process; see our guide on misconduct and domestic inquiries.
A director or employee facing allegations should:
- keep every message, file and record, and delete nothing
- take legal advice before giving a written explanation, attending an interview or giving a statement to the police or the MACC
- gather board resolutions, approvals and emails showing what they were authorised to do
- avoid discussing the allegations with witnesses
An allegation is not a finding. The company, or the prosecution in a criminal case, must still prove its case.
How NZSK handles corporate fraud matters
At NZSK, corporate fraud matters are run by our litigation team, which also handles the firm’s criminal work, so the civil, criminal and employment angles are considered together.
- We start with a consultation, online or in person at our Puchong or Mont Kiara office, and advise only after reviewing the actual documents.
- We map the claims, the people involved and the assets before recommending any urgent application.
- The same team prepares the affidavits, appears at the hearings and takes the claim through trial, enforcement and any appeal.
- Where the suspect is an employee, our Employment & Industrial Relations practice advises on suspension, inquiry and dismissal alongside the claim.
Partner Khoo Ai Theng (Maxine Khoo), an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya admitted in 2014, leads that practice, acts in civil and corporate litigation and has Legal 500 Asia-Pacific recognition in employment law. We act for defrauded companies and for accused directors and employees across the Klang Valley, subject to conflict checks. For misrepresentation claims, see our corporate fraud service guide.
Frequently Asked Questions
A company in Malaysia that discovers fraud by a director or employee should first preserve the evidence: bank statements, accounting records, emails, chat messages and devices. Limit who knows, avoid confronting the suspect too early, and take legal advice before suspending anyone, lodging a police report or writing to the suspect. Early advice matters because urgent orders, such as a Mareva injunction, are most effective before the other side knows a claim is coming.
Yes. A Malaysian court can grant a Mareva injunction freezing a defendant's assets, including bank accounts, if the company shows a good arguable case, assets within the jurisdiction and a real risk that they will be dissipated. The application is often made ex parte, with full and frank disclosure and an undertaking as to damages. Under Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012, an ex parte injunction lapses after 21 days, and an inter partes hearing decides whether it continues.
In Malaysia, a company can ask the court for a Bankers Trust type order requiring a bank to disclose account information so that misappropriated funds can be traced, or a Norwich Pharmacal type order against a third party holding information that identifies the wrongdoers. Pre-action discovery is available under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012. These orders are often sought together with a freezing order so that the money cannot be moved once it is found.
Often both, because they do different jobs. In Malaysia, a police report under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the usual way to set a criminal investigation in motion, and whether to prosecute is decided by the Public Prosecutor, not the company. A civil claim is what lets the company recover its money through judgment and enforcement. The timing and wording of the report should be planned so that it supports any urgent civil application. See our criminal litigation page.
In Peninsular Malaysia, claims in contract and tort generally must be filed within six years under the Limitation Act 1953. Where the claim is based on fraud, or fraud concealed the right to sue, section 29 provides that time runs only from when the claimant discovered the fraud or could have discovered it with reasonable diligence. The rule postpones the limit but does not remove it, so a company should act promptly once it suspects wrongdoing.
Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, in force since 1 June 2020, makes a commercial organisation liable when a person associated with it corruptly gives or offers gratification to obtain or retain business or an advantage for it. The fine is at least ten times the gratification or RM1 million, whichever is higher. The company's defence is proving it had adequate procedures in place, guided by the government's TRUST principles.
A director or employee in Malaysia facing a fraud allegation should keep every record, including personal messages, and delete nothing. They should take legal advice before giving a written explanation, attending an interview or making a statement to the police or the MACC, and gather documents showing what they were authorised to do, such as board resolutions, approvals and their contract. An allegation is not a finding, and the company or the prosecution must still prove its case.
The cost of a corporate fraud case in Malaysia depends on how urgent it is, whether freezing or disclosure orders are needed, the amount of forensic accounting work, the number of defendants, whether assets are held abroad and whether the case goes to trial. Because these factors vary widely, we give a fee quotation after the consultation, once we have reviewed the documents and agreed the immediate steps with you.
Discovered fraud, or facing an allegation?
We advise once we have reviewed your documents at a consultation, online or in person, at our Puchong or Mont Kiara office. If money may still be moving, tell us when you book on +603 8604 6580 or WhatsApp 012-401 4799 so the review can be arranged quickly.
- (+60)12-401 4799 | (+60)3-8060 0267
- [email protected]
Consultation by appointment at Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur and Puchong, Selangor, or online.
