-Th!nK-

T!me to BrainSt0rm !!

Here is the first example:
When driving his car home in Georgetown, Ryan called and talked with his wife through his mobile phone without the use of hands-free device. While talking, he lost control over his car and eventually hit a walking pedestrian.

*Is Ryan liable under civil or criminal law?
*Should this case go to court, what will be Ryan’s right?
*What should the pedestrian do to recover his injuries or loss?

As Malaysians, we are clearly informed that it is against the traffic law to talk via mobile phone without the use of hands-free device as well as to drink and drive. Criminal law defines various offences such as murder, robbery, forgery, counterfeiting, theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust and causing grievous hurt committed by individual against the State. It aims to punish individuals who commit crime hence Ryan is liable under criminal law.

If this case go to the court, Ryan will automatically be charged with negligent driving due to violations of the traffic law as he got distracted by using mobile phone while driving and eventually hit a pedestrian. As a result, he might received a black record for his driving record or even his driving license may be suspended for a specified time length beside having to pay the victim a compensation.

The pedestrian can sue Ryan in order to be compensated for his injuries, damages or loss. So, he might need a lawyer for informations on his rights. The pedestrian definitely can claim for a compensation of medical expenses. If he is absent from work due to his injuries, he might be able to claim a compensation for that too. However, the compensation amount depends on many factors other than the driver's car speed and whether the victim has major or minor injuries.

The second example:
Geena runs an unregistered online investment portal from her home in KL where she managed to get people deposit money to her account. It was discovered that the investment was a scam and she attempted to flee with the money, only to be arrested in the airport by immigration officers because she held a fake passport.

*Determine Geena’s liability: civil or criminal?
*What law(s) and statutes you think Geena has violated?

I would say that Geena is liable for civil law, the disputes between private individuals as she is actually committing a financial fraud- gaining money illegally for personal use. According to Bank Negara Malaysia, fraud is a crime and is also a civil law violations. Being holding a fake passport, she has violated criminal law which defines as violations of any statutory crime by individuals against the State. Even worst, she may be charged with forgery.

Moreover, I think that Geena has violated Passport Act, Immigration Act and Registrar of Companies Malaysia under Companies Act 1965. I found one article titled "Department making headway in fake passport cases" which happened to support my view. The reference website is http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/7/27/nation/21935047&sec=nation

Under 12B of Passport Act, any person who makes any false document
a) intending it to be used by himself or by any other person;
b) that is used by himself or by any other person,
as a passport for the purposes of this Act shall be guilty and be liable to a fine of not less than RM 15,000 but not more than RM100,000. Also, imprisonment for a term of not less than two years but not more than ten years and with whipping of not more than six strokes of the rotan.

As for the Immigration Act, prohibited persons include a person who is not in the possession of valid travel document or is in the possession of forged document. Under Companies Act 1965, Registrar of Companies required all companies to register before conducting any business activity in Malaysia.