White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

Legislation and Offences

The Penal Code (PC) is the legislation governing criminal offences and punishment in Malaysia, and is read together with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which embodies the legal procedures in relation to such offences. Other legislation also contains penal or criminal provisions on specific areas of law.

The offences under the PC may be broadly classified pursuant to the First Schedule to the CPC as follows.

Bailable and non-bailable offences

If an offence is bailable, the accused is entitled to bail as of right. For non-bailable offences, any grant of bail is discretionary. Certain offences (ie, security, drug and firearm offences) are unbailable and the court has no discretion to release the accused on bail.

Seizable and non-seizable offences

A seizable offence is an offence for which a police officer may arrest the accused without a warrant, whereas a non-seizable offence requires a warrant for an arrest to be made.

Compoundable and non-compoundable offences

For compoundable offences, an accused may agree with the victim to provide compensation in exchange for forgiveness. Once compounded, the offence is treated as an acquittal.

Establishing liability

Generally, guilt requires proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed a wrongful act (actus reus) with a corresponding guilty mind (mens rea). However, an omission can sometimes constitute actus reus, or the offence may carry strict liability, requiring no mens rea.

A person can also be guilty of attempting to commit or cause an offence, punishable under Section 511 PC by fine, imprisonment, or both. Under Section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACCA), even attempting to accept or obtain gratification constitutes bribery.

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

There are statutory defences available to an accused for certain offences. Under Section 17A MACCA, a corporate organisation charged with bribery may, on a balance of probabilities, defend itself by showing it had adequate procedures to prevent corrupt practices.

There are also statutory presumptions applicable for certain offences. Section 50 MACCA, for instance, presumes that mens rea for corruption exists once it is proven that any gratification by or to the accused was:

• received/accepted or agreed to be received/accepted;
• obtained or attempted to be obtained;
• solicited;
• given or agreed to be given;
• promised; or
• offered.

There is no limitation period for criminal offences in Malaysia. Criminal offences can be prosecuted regardless of effluxion of time.

The Malaysian courts have jurisdiction to deal with white-collar offences committed by citizens or permanent residents extraterritorially in the same manner as if such offences were committed within Malaysia, pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the PC and other specific legislation.

Although the powers of Malaysian law enforcement authorities do not extend beyond the territorial limits of Malaysia, such authorities may seek international assistance, through cross-border mutual assistance laws and extradition treaties, for bringing offenders situated outside Malaysia to justice.

Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (signed 9 December 2003, ratified 24 September 2008) and a party to the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (among like-minded ASEAN member countries), as well as several bilateral treaties. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002, effective from 2003, demonstrates Malaysia’s commitment to providing and obtaining international assistance in criminal matters. Extradition applies to white-collar offences with countries that have consented, provided the offence carries at least one year’s imprisonment or death under the laws of the foreign country or Malaysia (Section 6, Extradition Act 1992).

Malaysian enforcement authorities further co-operate through different networks – eg, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and INTERPOL.

Corporate Criminal Liability

Any company, association or body of persons may be held criminally liable and face sanctions for white-collar and regulatory offences under the Penal Code and various statutes, including the following:

• Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACCA);
• Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA);
• Competition Act 2010 (CA 2010);
• Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA);
• Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016); and
• Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA).

Corporate criminal liability arises from acts by employees, agents or officers within their authority, or conduct attributed to the company under corporate attribution principles.

Concurrent Liability of Individuals and Corporations

Individuals involved in managing a corporation may be held jointly or severally liable with the corporation for offences under Section 130T PC and related sectoral laws, such as:

• Section 17A MACCA;
• Section 87 AMLA;
• Section 540 CA 2016; and
• Section 367 CMSA.

These provisions allow dual enforcement, enabling prosecution of both the corporation and responsible individuals. Authorities often pursue both when there is evidence of direct participation, knowledge, consent or negligent supervision.

Most of these laws provide a statutory defence allowing individuals to claim innocence if the corporation’s offence occurred without their consent or connivance, and if they exercised due diligence within their role to prevent it.

Parent–Subsidiary and Group Company Liability

Malaysian law follows the principle of separate corporate personality. A parent company is not automatically liable for its subsidiaries’ acts, and vice versa, though liability may arise in limited circumstances, including:

• parent company or its officers were directly involved in, consented to or connived in the commission of the offence;
• subsidiary acted as the parent’s agent or under its direction in carrying out the unlawful conduct; or
• corporate structure was used as a sham or facade to conceal wrongdoing.

In assessing group liability, authorities may consider factors such as operational control, management overlap and whether the group’s policies materially contributed to the offence.

Corporate Liability for “Failure to Prevent” Offences

Under Section 17A MACCA, a commercial organisation commits an offence if a person “associated with” it, such as an employee, agent or subsidiary, corruptly gives, agrees to give or offers any gratification to obtain or retain business or a business advantage for the organisation.

The constituent elements are:

• a corrupt act committed by an associated person;
• the act being intended to obtain or retain business or an advantage for the organisation; and
• the organisation’s failure to have adequate procedures in place to prevent such conduct.

Successor Liability

Successors of a corporation may be liable for offences committed by the target entity before a merger or acquisition. Section 104 of the Financial Services Act 2013 provides that the target’s rights and liabilities, including any ongoing legal proceedings or applications, transfer to the successor entity.

While courts consider sentences for similar offences to ensure consistency, each case is decided on its own facts, taking into consideration any mitigating or aggravating factors. White-collar crimes involving abuse of trust or authority typically attract heavy, often maximum, penalties because they contravene public interest. As Mohamed Zaini Mazlan J stated in PP v Rosmah bt Mansor [2022] 11 MLJ 801: “The sentence must reflect society’s disapproval or revulsion of the crime. The sentence must also reflect the gravity of the offence committed. It should also serve as a deterrent to the accused and others from committing a crime of this nature.”

Where a plea agreement is reached, courts may reduce the sentence by one quarter to one third, depending on the offence’s severity. As Visu Sinnadurai J explained in PP v Ravindran and Others [1993] 1 MLJ 45: “The rationale for this rule is that much public time and money will be spared if an accused admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial.” This approach is subject to the court’s discretion, and is not as of right.

Victims of white-collar offences may seek compensation for their sustained losses through the following means.

Civil Claim

Victims of white-collar offences may seek compensation from responsible individuals or entities through civil action. They must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the elements of the predicate offence were satisfied and caused the losses.

Although representative actions are possible, they are rarely used due to strict procedural requirements. Plaintiffs must:

• have the same interest;
• be members of the same class;
• have a common grievance; and
• apply for relief beneficial to all members.

Restitution Order Through Criminal Prosecution

Under Section 426 of the CPC, Malaysian courts may, at their discretion, order a convicted individual or entity to pay monetary compensation to the victim(s) upon application by the Public Prosecutor.

Recovery Actions by Regulatory and Enforcement Authorities

Some regulatory and enforcement authorities have the discretion to secure compensation for victims of white-collar offences. Under Section 201(7) of the CMSA, when funds are recovered from offenders of insider trading, the Securities Commission must distribute them to victims who bought or sold securities of the same class on the stock exchange at the time of the first contravention.

White-collar offences in Malaysia may be investigated by the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) and various regulatory authorities, including:

• Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) – bribery and corruption offences;
• Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) – securities and derivatives offences;
• Companies Commission Malaysia (CCM) – corporate governance breaches, corporate misconduct or fraud;
• Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) – anti-competitive conduct;
• Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) – financial law breaches, including money laundering; and
• Inland Revenue Board (IRB) – tax-related offences.

White-collar offences in Malaysia can only be prosecuted with the consent of the Attorney General, who acts as the Public Prosecutor to ensure there is no conflict of jurisdiction between the Attorney General and regulatory or enforcement authorities.

To address the increasing complexity of corruption and cybercrime, Malaysia has established specialised courts that are better equipped to handle such cases.

In recent years, Malaysia has not seen major mergers or disbanding of regulatory agencies affecting white-collar enforcement. Instead, certain agencies have expanded or restructured internal units to strengthen investigative and prosecutorial capabilities. For instance, the RMP’s Commercial Crime Investigation Department has established a Technical and Tactical Cyber Unit to tackle cyber-enabled financial crimes.

Enforcement priorities are also influenced by public policy and political developments. Periods emphasising anti-corruption and governance reforms have corresponded with heightened prosecutorial activity by the MACC and the Attorney General’s Chambers.

In Malaysia, investigations into white-collar offences may be initiated through diverse channels, including the following.

Reports and Complaints

White-collar investigations are primarily initiated based on complaints and reports filed by individuals, organisations or whistle-blowers with relevant law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies or specialised units. For example, in relation to bribery and corruption offences, the MACC’s powers of investigation are only triggered following a report made under Section 29 of the MACCA.

Pursuant to the AMLA and regulations, reporting institutions such as banks and financial institutions are required to report suspicious transactions and activities which would trigger investigations by the regulators and law enforcement agencies.

Investigative Powers of the RMP

When there are sufficient reasonable grounds to suspect criminal misconduct, the RMP has the authority to independently commence investigations. Collaboration with other agencies is common practice.

Investigative Powers of Regulatory and Enforcement Bodies

Regulatory and enforcement bodies in Malaysia oversee specific sectors. For example, the SC, having regulatory sight over capital markets, can investigate related white-collar offences.

Under the CA 2016, the investigation of a company’s affairs is at the direction of the Minister for Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism, either by the Minister’s own motion or on the application of members or debenture holders of the company.

The RMP and other regulatory and enforcement authorities are conferred with wide powers under Malaysian laws to investigate white-collar offences, for instance, as follows.

Section 51 of the CPC empowers the police to deliver a summons or a written order to a person (including a company), in whose possession or power the property or document necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation is, for this to be produced. Should any person refuse to comply despite being in possession of or power over this, the court may then issue a search warrant pursuant to Section 54 of the CPC to allow the police to search the person’s premises for the document or property.

Pursuant to Section 127 of the Securities Commission Act 1993, an officer of the SC, carrying out an examination of a person, is entitled to access all books, documents, accounts, documents of title to its assets, all securities held by it in respect of securities transactions, and any other information and facilities that may be required. The Securities Commission Act 1993 also provides that electronic records may be seized and accessed (Sections 2G and 2H).

Under Section 30 of the MACCA, an investigating officer of the MACC may also direct a person to produce any book, document, record, account or computerised data or any other article that, in their opinion, may assist in the investigation. The person may also be ordered to attend before the investigating officer and be examined orally in relation to the matter. Alternatively, the person may be directed to furnish a written statement made on oath or an affirmation providing information that would assist the investigation.

In SPRM v Muhammad Haizatt Fitri bin Wahab and five Others (Criminal Appeal No C-06A-7-05/2023), the Court of Appeal confirmed that the MACC can rely on powers under the MACCA and/or PC/CPC, overruling an earlier High Court decision on remand powers.

Authorities can trace, freeze or seize property, including digital assets, linked to white-collar offences. Under Section 116D of the CPC, the police may seize property or documents and issue notices to deliver them.

The AMLA provides a framework for handling property, including digital assets:

• Section 3 – broadly defines property, including digital assets;
• Sections 31–32 – officers may investigate and require production of documents;
• Sections 37–38 – allow delivery and retention of obtained property;
• Section 44 – freezing orders where AMLA offences are suspected;
• Section 50 – seizure of property linked to offences; and
• Section 53 – prohibition on dealing with property outside Malaysia suspected of connection to offences.

These provisions allow authorities to trace and secure digital and financial assets, including cryptocurrencies, during investigations into money laundering, corruption or related offences.

Malaysian authorities, particularly the MACC, are using AI and digital tools in white-collar investigations to analyse data, detect anomalies and manage evidence more efficiently, aiming to shorten probe times and strengthen anti-corruption efforts as part of broader governance reforms.

The government established the National AI Office (NAIO) to develop AI policies and ethical frameworks, including for law enforcement. While no AI-specific legislation exists, existing laws like the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA), Computer Crimes Act 1997 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 provide legal safeguards for digital forensics and data handling.

There is no formal policy requiring authorities to accept AI-based internal investigations. Such findings are scrutinised for transparency, evidence reliability and human validation. Companies using AI are advised to maintain documentation, audit trails and independent verification. Authorities view AI as a complementary tool but expect compliance with standard evidentiary and procedural requirements.

While Malaysian law does not require companies to conduct internal investigations, it is strongly recommended. Proactive inquiries help address law enforcement concerns, facilitate resolution, and serve as a preventative measure against future misconduct.

Internal investigations in Malaysia must comply with data protection and employment laws. The PDPA governs the handling of personal data, and non-compliance can lead to regulatory or civil liability. Employment laws, including the Employment Act 1955 and Industrial Relations Act 1967, require that investigations involving employees be conducted fairly, giving employees an opportunity to respond before disciplinary action.

There is no general legal duty for companies to share internal investigation findings with authorities. However, disclosure may be expected in regulated sectors, like financial institutions or listed companies, where breaches or suspicious transactions are uncovered, as failing to report can attract liability.

Legal and litigation privilege protects communications for legal advice or in anticipation of litigation, including internal investigation reports prepared under counsel’s direction. Privilege may be lost if the company voluntarily discloses or waives confidentiality.

The Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 376(1) of the CPC, has discretionary power to initiate, conduct or discontinue prosecutions. Regulatory and enforcement bodies (eg, MACC, SC, CCM, BNM, MyCC, RMP’s Commercial Crime Investigation Department) also have discretion to prosecute offences within their jurisdictions.

While unfettered by written law, prosecutorial discretion must be exercised constitutionally and not in bad faith or for extraneous purposes.

Malaysia currently does not have in place any legislative provisions in relation to deferred prosecution agreements or non-prosecution agreements.

Fraudulently Inducing Persons to Invest Monies/Deal in Securities

Section 594 of the CA 2016 and Section 178 of the CMSA prohibit a person from inducing, or attempting to induce, another person to enter into or offer to enter into any agreement with a view to acquiring, disposing of, subscribing in or underwriting securities or lending or depositing monies to or with any corporation, or to securing a profit from the yield or fluctuations of marketable securities by intentionally:

• making or publishing any statement, promise or forecast that the maker knows to be misleading, false or deceptive;
• dishonestly concealing facts; or
• recklessly making or publishing, dishonestly or otherwise, any statement of promise or forecast that is misleading, false or deceptive.

The offence carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment not exceeding ten years and a fine of up to MYR3 million.

Fraudulent Trading

If it appears that a company intended to defraud creditors, Section 540 of the CA 2016 allows the court to lift the corporate veil and hold any person responsible for the fraudulent trading of the company and personally liable to the creditors for any debts or other liabilities incurred by the company as a result thereof.

To establish the “intent to defraud” creditors, the element of dishonesty is an essential ingredient that must be ascertained from a consideration of the entirety of the facts of the case.

False and Misleading Statements

Section 591 of the Companies Act 2016 makes it an offence for a company to knowingly issue or authorise false or misleading corporate documents, including returns, reports, certificates or financial statements. Upon conviction, the corporation may be liable for a fine not exceeding MYR3 million. Any clerk, officer or employee of a company can also be held personally liable for such offence and, if convicted, may be punished with imprisonment or a fine or both.

Under the MACCA, no distinction is made between bribes paid to public officials and private individuals. However, it provides additional bribery offences specifically concerning public officials.

Section 16 provides for the offence of accepting gratification and the constituent elements giving rise to the offence – ie, whereby a person who by themself or in conjunction with any other person corruptly solicits or receives, or agrees to receive (for themself or for any other person) or corruptly gives, promises or offers to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise on account of, any person or any officer of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned.

Section 17 provides for the offence of giving or accepting gratification by an agent – ie, whereby a person corruptly accepts, obtains or agrees to (from any person, for themself or for any other person) any gratification as an inducement or a reward, or corruptly gives, agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward, for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to their principal’s affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to their principal’s affairs or business.

Section 18 provides for the offence of intending to deceive the principal by agent – ie, whereby a person commits the offence if they give to an agent, or being an agent they use with intent to deceive their principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which they have reason to believe contains any statement which is false, erroneous or defective in any material particular and is intended to mislead the principal.

Section 20 provides for the offence of corruptly procuring withdrawal of tender – ie, for a person who, with intent to obtain from any public body a contract for performing any work, providing any service, doing anything, or supplying any article, material or substance, offers any gratification to any person who has made a tender for the contract, as an inducement or a reward for their withdrawing the tender, or who solicits or accepts any gratification as an inducement or a reward for their withdrawing a tender made by them for such contract.

Sections 21 and 22 are specific offences for an individual who solicits, accepts or offers gratification to an officer of a public body or a foreign public official, respectively.

The penalties are clearly stipulated under Section 24, whereby any person who commits an offence under Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years and to a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the gratification, where such gratification is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature, or to MYR10,000, whichever is higher.

In this regard, an “officer of a public body” is defined in Section 3 of the MACCA as any person who is a member, officer, employee or servant of a public body, and includes:

• a member of the administration;
• a member of parliament;
• a member of a State Legislative Assembly;
• a judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal or Federal Court; and
• any person receiving any remuneration from public funds.

Where the public body is a corporation sole, this includes the person who is incorporated as such.

The Malaysian government issued the Guidelines on Adequate Procedures to educate companies on systems that prevent corrupt practices. There is no statutory obligation to implement them, and failure to do so is not a standalone offence. However, implementation supports the “adequate procedures” defence for corporations charged under Section 17A MACCA.

Section 17A establishes corporate liability for corruption, making a commercial organisation criminally liable if a person associated with it gives, agrees to give, or offers gratification to obtain or retain business or a business advantage. The sole statutory defence is proving the organisation had “adequate procedures” to prevent such acts. The Guidelines on Adequate Procedures (issued under Section 17A(5)) set out five TRUST principles:

• top-level commitment;
• risk assessment;
• undertaking control measures;
• systematic review; and
• training and communication.

Implementing these measures acts as a compliance safeguard that may exonerate the company, while failure to do so weakens its defence.

There is no general statutory obligation in Malaysia for companies or individuals to report suspected bribery, except in specific situations. Under Section 25 MACCA, anyone offered, promised or given gratification must report it to the MACC, and failure to do so without reasonable excuse is an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to RM10,000. Reporting duties also arise in regulated sectors, eg, financial institutions, where suspicious transactions must be reported under AMLA.

Accordingly, while the implementation of an anti-bribery compliance programme is not itself a statutory obligation, it is strongly encouraged as part of good corporate governance and as a practical necessity to mitigate risk and establish a viable defence under section 17A of the MACCA.

The CMSA provides for a range of offences typically associated with financial market abuse, including the following.

False Trading and Market-Rigging Transactions

Section 175 CMSA prohibits any person from creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in securities on a Malaysian stock market, or a false or misleading appearance concerning the market or price of such securities.

Stock Market Manipulation

Section 176 CMSA prohibits any person from entering into transactions that have, or are likely to have, the effect of raising, lowering, pegging, fixing, maintaining or stabilising the price of securities for purposes that may include inducing others to acquire or dispose of the securities of the corporation or a related corporation.

False or Misleading Statements in Relation to Securities

Section 177 CMSA prohibits making or disseminating false or misleading statements likely to induce the sale or purchase of securities, and that have the effect of raising, lowering, maintaining or stabilising their market price, regardless of the maker’s state of mind regarding the truth of the statement.

Use of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

In connection with the sale and purchase of securities, Section 179 CMSA prohibits a person (whether directly or indirectly) from:

• using any device, scheme or artifice to defraud;
• engaging in any act, practice or course of business that operates or will operate as fraud or deceit; and
• making any statement that is untrue.

Dissemination of Information About Illegal Transactions

Section 181 CMSA prohibits circulating or disseminating information suggesting a transaction will affect a security’s price if the person has engaged in that transaction.

Insider Trading

An “insider” is defined under Section 188 CMSA as a person who:

• possesses information not generally available, which, if made public, a reasonable person would expect to materially affect the price or value of securities; and
• knows, or should reasonably know, that the information is not generally available.

It is an offence for the insider, whether as principal or agent, to acquire or dispose of securities or to enter into any such agreement in respect thereof.

Pursuant to Section 182 CMSA, a person who contravenes Sections 175, 176, 177, 178 or 181 could be imprisoned for a term not exceeding ten years and subject to a fine of not less than MYR1 million.

A person breaching Section 188 CMSA may face up to ten years’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of MYR1 million. The SC may also initiate civil action, and the court can impose a civil penalty of up to MYR1 million, depending on the offence’s severity.

The ITA does not explicitly impose criminal liability for a “tax fraud offence”. However, Section 114 establishes the offence of wilful evasion, covering anyone who wilfully and intentionally evades or aids another in evading tax:

• omits from a return made under the ITA any income which should be included;
• makes a false statement or entry in a return made under the ITA;
• gives a false answer (orally or in writing) to a question asked or request for information made in pursuance of the ITA;
• prepares, maintains or authorises the preparation or maintenance of false books of account or other false records;
• falsifies or authorises the falsification of books of account or other records; or
• makes use of or authorises the use of any fraud, artifice or contrivance.

A person guilty of wilful evasion may, on conviction, be fined between MYR1,000 and MYR20,000, imprisoned for up to three years, or both, and must pay a special penalty of three times the undercharged tax.

Any person who assists or advises in preparing a return that understates another’s tax liability, unless they prove to the court that it was done with reasonable care, commits an offence punishable by a fine of MYR2,000–20,000, imprisonment for up to three years, or both.

Under the AMLA, financial institutions and certain businesses must comply with anti-money laundering requirements. Such entities are termed “reporting institutions”.

The AMLA imposes the following obligations on the reporting institutions:

• to conduct customer due diligence (CDD) and risk assessments;
• to report suspicious transactions to BNM;
• to maintain and retain records of transactions;
• to implement an AML compliance programme that is reflective of the reporting institution’s money laundering risk exposure and its size, nature and complexity; and
• for selected reporting institutions only, to submit a cash threshold report (CTR) to BNM for cash transactions in the amount of MYR25,000 and above.

Non-compliance with record-keeping (Section 13), suspicious transaction reporting (Section 14) or CDD obligations (Section 16) may result in a fine of up to MYR1 million, imprisonment for up to three years, or both. Failure to retain documents for at least six years (Section 17) may incur a fine of up to MYR3 million, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

Part II of the CA 2010 prohibits anti-competitive practices, including anti-competitive agreements (Chapter 1) and abuse of a dominant position (Chapter 2), as detailed below.

Anti-Competitive Agreements

Pursuant to Section 4 CA 2010, the following applies.

• A horizontal or vertical agreement between enterprises is prohibited in so far as the agreement has the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in any market for goods or services.
• Horizontal agreements are deemed to have the object of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in any market for goods or services when they have the object of:
1. price or trading condition fixing;
2. market or supply source sharing;
3. limiting or controlling production or market access; or
4. bid rigging.

MyCC’s Guidelines on Chapter 1 Prohibitions state that once an anti-competitive “object” is established, MyCC need not assess the agreement’s anti-competitive effect.

Notwithstanding Section 4 CA 2010, an enterprise may seek relief of liability pursuant to Section 5 CA 2010 if:

• the agreement yields significant, identifiable technological, efficiency or social benefits;
• such benefits could not reasonably be achieved without the agreement affecting competition;
• the agreement’s competitive harm is proportionate to its benefits; and
• it does not enable the enterprise to eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market.

Abuse of Dominant Position

Under Section 10 of the CA 2010, the following applies.

• An enterprise is prohibited from engaging, whether independently or collectively, in any conduct that amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in any market for goods or services (Section 10(1) CA 2010).
• Without prejudice to the generality of Section 10(1) CA 2010, Section 10(2) CA 2010 sets out that abuse of dominant position may include, directly or indirectly:
1. imposing unfair purchase or selling prices;
2. limiting control or supply of production;
3. applying different trading conditions to equivalent transactions; and
4. predatory behaviour towards competitors.

A 60% market share indicates dominance, but MyCC also considers factors like the enterprise’s ability to act independently of competitors. Dominance alone is not an infringement; it must involve abuse.

Pursuant to Section 40 CA 2010, if MyCC determines that there is an infringement of a prohibition under Part II of CA 2010, it:

• shall require that the infringement be ceased immediately;
• may specify steps required to be taken by the infringing enterprise, and which appear to MyCC as appropriate for bringing the infringement to an end;
• may impose a financial penalty; or
• may give any other direction as it deems appropriate.

Section 40(4) CA 2010 limits MyCC’s financial penalty to 10% of an enterprise’s worldwide turnover during the infringement period.

The Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA) prohibits certain conduct or behaviour in the supply of goods or services to consumers, including:

• engaging in conduct that is false or misleading regarding the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability, availability, or quantity of goods or services, or making a false or misleading representation;
• providing a misleading indication of the price of any goods or services;
• bait advertising – advertising goods or services at a price the seller does not intend to offer or reasonably believe can be supplied;
• offering a gift, prize or free item without intending to provide it, or failing to provide it as promised;
• describing goods as limited when supplying or offering them, unless their production or availability is genuinely restricted to a predetermined maximum quantity or the actual quantity ordered within a specified, reasonably short period; and
• demanding or accepting payment or consideration for goods or services when, at the time of the demand or acceptance, the person –
1. does not intend to supply the goods or services,
2. intends to supply goods or services materially different from those for which payment or consideration is demanded or accepted, or
3. lacks reasonable grounds to believe they can supply the goods or services within the specified period, or within a reasonable time if no period is specified.

Any person engaged in any of the aforesaid conduct shall, on conviction, be liable to:

• if a body corporate – a fine of up to MYR250,000, and for a second or subsequent offence, up to MYR500,000;
• if not a body corporate – a fine of up to MYR100,000, or imprisonment for up to three years, or both; for a second or subsequent offence, a fine of up to MYR250,000, or imprisonment for up to six years, or both.

With increasingly complex technology systems, malpractice is rising, and Malaysia is experiencing more technology-related offences.

Hacking

Under Section 3 of the Computer Crimes Act 1997 (CCA), it is an offence to knowingly and intentionally access a computer without authorisation to obtain any programme or data. Conviction carries a fine of up to MYR50,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

Section 4 of the CCA establishes an offence for committing a Section 3 offence with the intent to:

• commit a fraud or dishonesty offence causing injury under the PC; or
• facilitate such an offence by oneself or another person.

This is punishable by a fine not exceeding MYR150,000 or imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both.

Cyber-Bullying

Section 233(1)(b) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) makes it an offence to repeatedly or continuously communicate via any application or service with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass anyone, regardless of whether the communication occurs or the sender’s identity is disclosed. Conviction carries a fine of up to MYR50,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, plus an additional fine of MYR1,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction.

Infection of IT Systems With Malware

Infecting IT systems with malware is an offence under Section 5 of the CCA, which covers knowingly causing unauthorised modification of a computer’s contents. Conviction carries a fine of up to MYR100,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both, if done with intent to cause injury.

Other Activities

Any activity that compromises or threatens the security, confidentiality, integrity or availability of IT systems, infrastructure, networks, devices or data is regulated under the CMA. For example, it is an offence to:

• use any device to obtain information about the contents, sender or recipient of a communication without approval from a registered certifying agency (Section 231 CMA);
• possess or create a system to fraudulently use or access network facilities, services or applications (Section 232(2) CMA);
• intercept or attempt to intercept, or procure others to intercept, any communications (Section 234 CMA); and
• extend, tamper with, alter, remove, destroy or damage any network facilities or parts thereof (Section 235 CMA).

A person convicted of any of the above CMA offences may face a fine of MYR50,000–300,000, imprisonment for two to three years, or both.

Organisations must secure personal data under the Personal Data Protection Principles (Sections 6–12, PDPA 2010). Non-compliance may result in a fine of up to MYR300,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.

In July 2024, the Malaysian Parliament passed the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill 2024 to align Malaysia’s data protection laws with international standards. The Bill introduces substantial amendments, including:

• the mandatory appointment of a data protection officer;
• the addition of biometric data as personal data; and
• increased penalties for breach of personal data protection principles – up to RM1 million and/or up to three years’ imprisonment.

However, the Bill has yet to come into force.

Online Financial Fraud

The Penal Code was amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2024 to include offences related to payment instruments and financial institution accounts, addressing the rise of online financial fraud in Malaysia.

• Section 424A: Possession or control of another person’s payment instrument or financial institution account without lawful authority or purpose. Punishment: fine RM5,000–50,000, imprisonment six months to five years, or both.
• Section 424B: Giving possession or control of a payment instrument or financial institution account to another person without lawful authority or purpose. Punishment: fine RM10,000–100,000, imprisonment one to seven years, or both.
• Section 424C(1): Engaging in any transaction using one’s payment instrument or financial institution account without lawful purpose. Punishment: fine RM10,000–150,000, imprisonment three to ten years, or both.
• Section 424C(2): Engaging in any transaction using another person’s payment instrument or financial institution account without lawful authority or purpose. Punishment: fine RM10,000–150,000, imprisonment three to ten years, or both.

Amendments to the CPC also address legal procedures for online financial fraud, granting police officers (Sergeant or above) the power to seize or restrict monies involved and to arrest suspects without a warrant.

Trade and customs laws in Malaysia are governed by the following:

• Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993;
• Safeguards Act 2006;
• Customs Act 1967;
• Control of Supplies Act 1961; and
• Strategic Trade Act 2010.

A key customs and trade sanctions offence is breaching export controls. In Malaysia, goods may be exported to any country except Israel without a MITI-issued export licence. Export controls apply in the following cases:

• gazetted or controlled goods;
• strategic items under the Strategic Trade Act 2010, or unlisted items usable in restricted activities;
• goods regulated or prohibited under the International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 to protect endangered wildlife; and
• goods regulated or prohibited under the Customs (Prohibition of Exports) Order 2023.

There are two categories of controls on items for exportation under the Customs (Prohibition of Exports) Order 2023:

• items absolutely prohibited for export to all countries, such as poisonous chemicals, minerals and substances under the Montreal Protocol; and
• products requiring an export licence or approval, such as 95 RON petrol and liquefied petroleum gas.

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, among others, administer the requisite licences and/or approvals for most goods.

Malaysia’s sanctions regime is primarily national. Following the UN Security Council Resolution in 2004 urging export controls to prevent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) proliferation, Malaysia enacted the Strategic Trade Act 2010, regulating the export, transhipment, transit and brokering of strategic items, including arms and related materials, and activities that could facilitate WMD design, development, production and delivery systems.

Both the Customs Act 1967 and the Strategic Trade Act 2010 provide for the following penalties for violation of export controls:

• a jail sentence not exceeding five years, or up to life imprisonment, depending on the severity and type of offence; and
• fines of between MYR50,000 and MYR30 million or more.

In addition, the Strategic Trade Act 2010 also imposes capital punishment for certain offences where the breach or offence results in death.

Section 120 of the PC states that a person who voluntarily conceals a design to commit an imprisonable offence shall, if the offence is committed, face imprisonment of up to one quarter of the offence’s maximum term; if not committed, up to one eighth of the maximum term, or the fine provided for the offence, or both.

Concealing the subject matter of an offence of accepting gratification is an offence on its own, and is punishable under Section 26 of the MACCA.

Any person, inside or outside Malaysia, acting directly or indirectly, who deals with, uses, holds, receives or conceals property derived from an offence under Sections 16–18 or 20–23 of the MACCA, is punishable under Section 26 of the MACCA.

The individual offences identified in Section 26 of the MACCA include:

• the offence of accepting gratification (Section 16);
• the offence of giving or accepting gratification by agent (Section 17);
• the offence of intending to deceive the principal by agent (Section 18);
• corruptly procuring withdrawal of tender (Section 20);
• bribery of an officer of a public body (Section 21);
• bribery of foreign public officials (Section 22); and
• the offence of using an office or position for gratification (Section 23).

Upon conviction, the convicted person may be sentenced to a fine not exceeding MYR50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both.

An offender who has committed a predicate offence and who subsequently commits an offence for concealment could be charged and punished for both offences, respectively.

In Public Prosecutor v Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd and Others [2018] MLJU 791, the Court of Appeal explained a predicate offence in money laundering as follows.

• There must be an “unlawful activity” listed in the Second Schedule to the AMLA, known as a predicate offence.
• There must be identifiable proceeds directly linked to that unlawful activity/predicate offence.
• An act of money laundering must involve those identifiable proceeds.
• The requisite mens rea, which may be inferred from objective circumstances or conduct, must be present.

Predicate offences under the AMLA are those listed in the Second Schedule to the 2001 Act, including:

• falsification, concealment or destruction of documents under Section 108 of the Development Financial Institutions Act 2002; and
• dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of consideration under Section 424 of the PC.

The following legislation applies to aiding and abetting.

• Section 107 PC defines abetment as instigating, engaging in or intentionally aiding the commission of an act.
• Section 109 PC states that anyone who abets an offence, and the act occurs as a result, shall receive the punishment prescribed for that offence if no specific abetment penalty exists.
• Section 28 MACCA provides that attempting, preparing for, abetting or conspiring to commit an offence constitutes the offence itself, punishable as prescribed.

To prove money laundering under Section 4(1) AMLA, the prosecution must show that the accused has:

• engaged, directly or indirectly, in a transaction involving proceeds of an unlawful activity or offence-related instrumentalities;
• acquired, received, possessed, disguised, transferred, converted, exchanged, carried, disposed of or used such proceeds or instrumentalities;
• removed from or brought into Malaysia such proceeds or instrumentalities; or
• concealed, disguised or impeded the establishment of the true nature, origin, location, movement, disposition, title, rights or ownership of such proceeds or instrumentalities.

Under Section 4 AMLA, engaging in or abetting money laundering is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to MYR5 million, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

Section 4(2) AMLA allows conviction regardless of whether a serious offence or foreign serious offence has been prosecuted or convicted.

Predicate offences are set out in the Second Schedule to the AMLA, and include:

• fraud;
• drug trafficking;
• corruption and bribery;
• smuggling offences; and
• tax crimes.

The AMLA also imposes anti-money laundering requirements on “reporting institutions” as follows:

• to conduct CDD and risk assessments;
• to report suspicious transactions to BNM;
• to maintain and retain records of transactions;
• to implement an AML compliance programme that is reflective of the reporting institution’s money laundering risk exposure and its size, nature and complexity; and
• for selected reporting institutions only, to submit a CTR to BNM for cash transactions in the amount of MYR25,000 and above.

The MACC and BNM are the competent authorities for enforcing compliance with these requirements under the AMLA. In particular, BNM’s role includes:

• receiving suspicious transaction reports and CTRs from reporting institutions;
• making recommendations to supervising authorities, enforcement agencies and reporting institutions; and
• issuing circulars, policies or guidelines to implement AMLA provisions.

Malaysia recognises criminal offences for environmental misconduct under the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (EQA) and its subsidiary legislation. The DOE enforces standards on air, water and waste pollution, and offenders may face fines and/or imprisonment upon conviction.

While companies are not legally required to monitor supply chains for environmental compliance, Bursa Malaysia mandates sustainability disclosures for listed companies. Non-compliance may lead to regulatory scrutiny.

Beyond environmental offences, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia prohibits slavery and all forms of forced labour. Malaysia, an International Labour Organization member since 1957, has ratified the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No 29), committing to suppress all forms of forced or compulsory labour.

The Employment Act 1955 criminalises employers who threaten, deceive or force employees to work, or prevent them from leaving the workplace. Conviction under Section 90B of ATIPSOM may result in a fine of up to RM100,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM) criminalises trafficking for exploitation, including forced labour, with penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment and fines (Section 12). Aggravated trafficking, causing grievous harm, death or suicide, carries life imprisonment or a minimum of five years’ imprisonment, plus whipping (Section 13). Companies may be held liable for acts by employees or agents in the course of their duties (Section 65).

Corporate offenders under ATIPSOM face substantial penalties, including:

• fines three times the maximum under the relevant section;
• a minimum fine of RM1 million where none is specified; and
• RM5 million for offences involving trafficked persons or smuggled migrants (Section 63).

The Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PDA) sets social obligations for equal employment, fair working conditions and equal pay for persons with disabilities but does not impose criminal liability for non-compliance (Section 29).

Malaysia currently has no specific statutory offences targeting AI misuse, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making in financial or commercial contexts. However, existing laws may apply if such conduct involves unauthorised access, manipulation, or market abuse.

In capital markets, Bursa Malaysia’s Rules at Chapter 6 prohibit trading participants from connecting unapproved systems or devices to the Exchange’s platform without prior approval. Breaches may lead to disciplinary action, suspension or fines by the Exchange or SC. SC’s revised Technology Guidelines also require licensed entities to manage AI or machine learning risks to ensure fairness, accountability and market integrity.

Misuse of AI or automated tools involving unauthorised system access, data interference or manipulation may incur liability under the Computer Crimes Act 1997, which punishes unauthorised access or modification of computer material with up to seven years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

While Malaysia has no standalone offences for “AI misuse”, automated decision-making or algorithmic trading that causes deception, market manipulation or fraud may be prosecuted under the Penal Code, Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, or other sectoral laws. Enforcement authorities can thus use existing frameworks to address AI-related misconduct.

Malaysia regulates crypto-assets under the CMSA and AMLA. The Capital Markets and Services (Prescription of Securities) (Digital Currency and Digital Token) Order 2019 classifies certain digital currencies and tokens as securities if they meet criteria on trading, expected returns and issuance, bringing them under SC jurisdiction. Crypto-assets not meeting these criteria are treated as property or intangible assets for civil and tax purposes and are not legal tender.

Key crypto-asset offences include:

• operating unlicensed exchanges or offerings;
• market manipulation;
• fraud; and
• money laundering.

Under Sections 7 and 34 CMSA, conducting regulated activities (such as running a digital asset exchange or facilitating token offerings) without SC registration is punishable by fines and imprisonment, and the SC may issue reprimands or suspend operations. Misleading conduct, false statements or fraudulent inducement in digital asset offerings can lead to up to ten years’ imprisonment and/or fines of up to RM10 million. The SC also maintains an investor alert list naming non-compliant crypto-asset service providers and has enforced actions against unregistered digital asset exchanges.

Under the AMLA, dealing with or converting crypto-assets derived from unlawful activity constitutes money laundering. The offence requires proof that the assets are proceeds of an unlawful act and that the person knew or should have known this. Conviction carries up to 15 years’ imprisonment and a fine of at least five times the property’s value or RM5 million, whichever is higher.

Crypto-asset service providers, including exchanges and custodians, must register with the SC as Recognised Market Operators or Digital Asset Custodians and comply with the SC’s Guidelines on Digital Assets. They are reporting institutions under the AMLA, obliged to perform customer due diligence, record-keeping and suspicious transaction reporting. Non-compliance may lead to prosecution, revocation of registration, and substantial fines. Directors, CEOs, officers or representatives may also be vicariously liable unless they prove the offence occurred without their consent or connivance and that they exercised all due diligence relative to their role and circumstances.

In summary, while Malaysia does not criminalise mere possession or use of crypto-assets, enforcement focuses on unlicensed operations, fraudulent or manipulative conduct, and the use of digital assets for laundering or illicit financing.

The primary defence for a white-collar offence is that the prosecution has not proven all elements of the charge.

Under Section 17A(4) MACCA, an effective compliance programme can defend a corporate bribery offence, allowing a commercial organisation to show it had adequate procedures to prevent associated persons from engaging in corrupt conduct.

The Guidelines on Adequate Procedures, issued under Section 17A(5) MACCA, help organisations understand and implement measures to prevent corrupt practices in their business activities. The Guidelines were formed on the basis of five core principles of TRUST:

• top-level commitment;
• risk assessment;
• undertaking control measures;
• systematic review; and
• training and communication.

Malaysia has no de minimis exceptions or sectoral exemptions for white-collar offences. The Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, retains discretion to:

• not initiate criminal proceedings; or
• discontinue pending proceedings in the event the violation is trivial in nature upon receipt of written representation from the accused.

Plea bargaining allows an accused to negotiate with the Public Prosecutor to plead guilty in exchange for concessions, such as reduced charges or lighter sentences. The procedure, outlined in Sections 172C–172F CPC and case law (PP v Manimaran Manickam [2011] 8 CLJ 439), can be summarised as follows.

• The accused initiates plea bargaining by applying to the Public Prosecutor.
• The Public Prosecutor responds promptly, and both parties ideally agree on a sentencing range, preferably in writing.
• The agreement is presented to the court. If approved, the court imposes a sentence within the agreed range. If not, the court informs the parties of the sentence it intends to impose, and the parties decide the next steps. Without an agreement, the case proceeds to trial.

Under Section 13 CPC, individuals must promptly report to the nearest police station any information about another person’s intention to commit an offence under the PC or other written law.

Section 25 MACCA requires reporting bribery transactions involving given, promised or offered gratification. Non-compliance may lead to a fine of up to MYR100,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.

Internal investigation findings can be reported to the RMP via a first information report, while suspected MACCA offences are reported to the MACC. Co-operation with authorities in investigations or prosecutions is considered a mitigating factor by the court.

The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA) is the key legislation conferring protection to whistle-blowers, and includes:

• protection of confidential information;
• immunity from civil and criminal action; and
• protection of the whistle-blower and of any person related to or associated with them against detrimental action (Section 7(1) WPA).

This would extend to:

• protection against disclosure of confidential information that could identify or expose the whistle-blower;
• blanket immunity from civil or criminal liability for disclosures made; and
• protection against reprisals, including termination, withheld payments or refusal of future contracts, solely for making the disclosure.

The MACCA protects whistle-blowers by keeping their identity and information confidential when reporting to a MACC officer. Courts, tribunals or other authorities cannot order disclosure, and any court documents must conceal the whistle-blower’s identity to prevent discovery.

Most Malaysian companies have internal whistle-blowing policies to combat bribery and corruption, particularly under Section 17A MACCA, which allows corporations to be charged for bribery. Section 17A(4) provides a statutory defence if the corporation had adequate procedures to prevent associated persons from engaging in bribery.

The official Guidelines on Adequate Procedures advise commercial organisations to establish accessible, confidential and possibly anonymous whistle-blowing channels that encourage reporting of suspected, attempted or actual corruption in good faith.

Malaysia has no formal cross-border defence mechanisms; co-operation is typically co-ordinated privately among counsel in each jurisdiction. Strategic alignment is key for:

• document production;
• privilege claims;
• witness preparation; and
• settlement negotiations.

Limitations include:

• constitutional due process protections;
• privilege against self-incrimination; and
• refusal of assistance for political, military or discriminatory offences.

Effective defence in multi-jurisdictional white-collar cases relies on early engagement with regulators, careful management of privilege and confidentiality, and a harmonised approach anticipating mutual legal assistance, asset-freeze applications and possible extradition.

Malaysia’s white-collar crime enforcement is set to evolve in 2025, driven by institutional and regulatory initiatives focused on transparency, technology and stronger compliance oversight.

The MACC is expanding digital forensics, data analytics and AI to enhance corruption detection and accelerate investigations, enabling more efficient processing of complex financial data.

BNM and the SC continue to prioritise anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, especially in emerging sectors like digital assets and fintech. The SC’s 2024–2025 Strategic Priorities include tighter oversight of licensed digital asset exchanges and custodians under the CMSA and Digital Assets Guidelines, while BNM strengthens supervision under the AMLA.

At the policy level, the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) 2024–2028 guides reforms emphasising public procurement integrity, political financing transparency, and inter-agency co-ordination. Malaysia’s NAIO, established in late 2024, is expected to support a national AI governance framework, potentially shaping future compliance expectations across regulated sectors, though no specific legal reforms have yet been enacted.