Moneylending

4 cases · April 2025 to June 2026

Case Volume by Year

2
25
2
26
2025–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Friendly loan — Allegation lender was unlicensed moneylender — Borrower alleging excessive interest and usurious conduct — Whether transaction constituted moneylending business or isolated friendly loan — Whether loan unenforceable for illegality — Moneylenders Act 1951. 1 Illegal moneylending — Borrowing of RM4 million under Letter of Undertaking and Guarantee (LoUG) with 16% return — Default in repayment triggering agreed security enforcement mechanism of transferring 51% controlling shareholding — Whether single loan transaction at interest raises unrebutted presumption of carrying on moneylending business under Moneylenders Act 1951 — Distinguishing Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd — Exorbitant versus commercial return — Singularity of transaction arising from existing business relationship — Plaintiff successfully discharging burden of proof to rebut statutory presumption — LoUG held valid and enforceable. 1 Licensed moneylender — Moneylending agreement (MLA) — Principal sum — Interest rate — Unsecured vs. secured loan; Letter of offer. Statutory Compliance — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Sections 16, 17, 19, 21, and 27 — Moneylenders (Control and Licensing) Regulations 2003; Schedule K — Validity and Enforceability under Section 16 — W hether the first Moneylending Agreement (MLA 1) is enforceable given the Plaintiff’s failure to date, stamp, and deliver a copy of the agreement to the Defendant before the money was lent, as mandatorily required by Section 16 of the Moneylenders Act 1951. Statutory Compliance of Attestation under Section 27 — Whether the failure to have MLA 1 attested by an authorized person (such as an Advocate and Solicitor) who explains the terms to the borrower renders the agreement void and unenforceable pursuant to Section 27 of the Act. Enforceability — Void ab initio — Unenforceable contract — Stamping requirements — Attestation — Delivery of documents. Legality of Up-front Deductions and Fees — Whether up-front deductions for administrative fees, legal costs, and interest from the principal sum are permitted under Section 23, and whether a "Binding Term Sheet" can legally authorize such deductions or if it constitutes an attempt to "contract out" of protective social legislation. Loan Characteristics — Unlawful deductions — Up-front interest — "Loan shark" (Along) practices — Sham agreements — Binding term sheets. Evidence & Procedure — Statement of accounts — Production of accounts in court — Estoppel against statute — Section 62 Interpretation Act 1948/1967 — Mandatory Production of Statement of Accounts — Whether the non-production of regular accounts for MLA 1 at the commencement of legal proceedings, as required by Sections 19 and 21, constitutes a fatal irregularity that precludes the Plaintiff from recovering the debt. Effect of Deviations from Prescribed Form K — Whether variations in the wording of a moneylending agreement compared to the prescribed Schedule K invalidate the instrument, or whether such deviations are saved by Section 62 of the Interpretation Act as having no substantial effect and not being calculated to mislead. 1 section 17(1) MLA 1951 provides that interest payable for the period of the loan is capitalised at the end of this period, and default interest charged thereon is not considered as interest on interest Land law — demand for an amount in breach of section 17 (1) MLA 1951 amounts to an unlawful demand in contravention of a rule of law and is a cause to the contrary sufficient to defeat an enforcement of a charge action 1

Friendly loan — Allegation lender was unlicensed moneylender — Borrower alleging excessive interest and usurious conduct — Whether transaction constituted moneylending business or isolated friendly loan — Whether loan unenforceable for illegality — Moneylenders Act 1951. 1 case

Illegal moneylending — Borrowing of RM4 million under Letter of Undertaking and Guarantee (LoUG) with 16% return — Default in repayment triggering agreed security enforcement mechanism of transferring 51% controlling shareholding — Whether single loan transaction at interest raises unrebutted presumption of carrying on moneylending business under Moneylenders Act 1951 — Distinguishing Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd — Exorbitant versus commercial return — Singularity of transaction arising from existing business relationship — Plaintiff successfully discharging burden of proof to rebut statutory presumption — LoUG held valid and enforceable. 1 case

section 17(1) MLA 1951 provides that interest payable for the period of the loan is capitalised at the end of this period, and default interest charged thereon is not considered as interest on interest Land law — demand for an amount in breach of section 17 (1) MLA 1951 amounts to an unlawful demand in contravention of a rule of law and is a cause to the contrary sufficient to defeat an enforcement of a charge action 1 case

Key Statutes

Moneylenders Act
cited in 1 case
Singaporean Moneylenders Act
cited in 1 case
Moneylenders Act 1951
cited in 1 case
cited in 1 case
cited in 1 case
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case

Court Distribution

Key People & Firms

Cases