Abdul Rahman bin Abu Maman @ Abdul Manan v Mohamad bin Mohamed Nordin & Ors

Investment schemes - fraud - misrepresentation - privity of contract - jurisdiction of Malaysian courts - Burden of Proof - s.101 & s.102 Evidence Act 1950

The issues to be tried are as follows: -

1. Whether the Defendant had personally or jointly introduced and promoted the gold investment scheme which uses gold as the subject matter and the consideration/ return of the investment?
2. Whether the Defendants had personally or jointly misappropriated the Plaintiff's money and committed fraud against the Plaintiff and other investors when the Defendants had (allegedly) cheated and misused the moneys which was paid by the Plaintiffs and other investors, as the capital for the scheme?
3. Whether the moneys paid by the Plaintiff and the investors had been misused and taken personally or jointly by the Defendants?
4. Whether there is any privity of contract between the Defendants personally or jointly with the Plaintiff and/ or the 75 other claimants?
5. Whether the Defendants are the agents/ representatives of Pegasus?
6. Whether the Defendants had any privity of contract with the Plaintiff or any of the other investors?
7. Whether the Plaintiff has any locus to initiate or file this action in Malaysia?
8. Whether Pegasus's business which is a pyramid scheme (multi level marketing) is a legal business in Malaysia?

Case Summary