(9) Criminal Breach of Trust

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST Parties in this issue are A as the accused and B as the victim. The issue is whether A can be held liable for offence of criminal breach of trust in section 405 of the Penal Code and punishable with section 406 for his act committed towards B. LAW PRINCIPLE Criminal breach of trust is defined in section 405 as a person is entrusted in any any mann manner er over over prop proper erty ty or domi domini nion on over over prop proper erty ty and and the the pers person on dishonestly dishonestly convert convert to his own use or dishonestl dishonestly y uses or disposes the property property in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract or willfully suffers any other person, he is commit criminal breach of trust. In determining the liability of A, we must whether his act falls within the meaning of the offence. There are three elements must be satisfied. Firstly, ther there e must must be some some entru entrust stmen mentt or domi dominio nion n of prop propert erty y to the the accu accuse sed. d. Secondly, there must dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use, or dishonestly use or dispose of the property or willfully suffers another person to do so. Lastly, dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction of  law or legal contract.

Firstly, the first element is that the accused must be in entrustment or is in a dominion over a property. The definition of entrustment is to trust a person to look after something. something. In the case of  Jaswantlal v State, entrustment was defined as when a person handling over a property to another continues to be it whereby the owner is still the same. While in the case of  Bahru Zaman Bin Ali v PP, the accused, a clerk at parcel office had received 50 cent for a ticket but no receipt was given. The court then held that as an employee, he was entrusted by his employer to receive the money. Dominio Dominion n in the other hand is a contro controll over over the property property.. The accused accused must have control over the property eventhough not in physically in possession over that property. In the case of  Yeoh Teck Chye v PP, the accused was a bank manager had approved a check for an overdraft facility which he has no power to do so. The court held that although there was no entrustment but here was was a domin dominio ion n on the part part of the the accu accuse sed d as he was was bank bank manager manager and responsible for the money disbursed.

Secondly , this situation falls under dishonest misappropriate or convert to his own use of the property. As define in the case of  Sohan Lal v Emperor, misappropriate is assign to wrong person or wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined in section 24 & 23 as intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to other person. Lastly, there must have dishonestly disposes the property in violation of  any any dire direct ction ion of law or lega legall cont contra ract. ct. Dish Dishon ones estt is stat stated ed in sect section ion 24 as whoever does anything with intention to cause wrongful gain to other person, or wrongful loss to the other is said to do that dishonestly. In the case of  Mohd Adil v PP, the accused as a headmaster of a school had deducted the salary of  teachers for a society fund but no payment was made to the fund, the court held that he was liable for CBT. This situation was illustrated in the case case of  Murni bin

where e the the accu accuse sed d had had perfo perform rmed ed his duty duty in Haji Haji Moha Mohame med d Taha Taha v PP wher contradiction of the State Financial Regulations. APPLICATION CONCLUSION In a conclusion, as A had fulfilled all the elements of criminal breach of  trus trust, t, he may may be held held liab liable le for for the the crim crime e unde underr sect sectio ion n 40 405 5 and and may may be punishable under section 406 of the penal code.