- Published on
Malaysian Banking Law: “Banking Business” — Development Banks and Scope of Banking Activities
Case Scenario
A development financial institution in Malaysia provides loans and credit facilities to a company for business purposes. When the company defaults, the institution sues to recover the outstanding amount. The borrower argues that the institution is not a licensed bank and therefore the loan is illegal. The court must determine whether lending money alone amounts to “banking business.”
Q and A
Q1: What was the main issue in Sabah Development Bank Bhd v SKBS (Sabah) Sdn Bhd?
The court had to decide whether a development bank that provides loans without a banking licence is unlawfully carrying on banking business, and whether such loans are therefore invalid.
Q2: What was the defendants’ argument?
The defendants argued that since the plaintiff was not licensed as a bank under the Banking Act 1973, it had no legal right to give loans. They claimed that the lending activity itself amounted to banking business, and because the plaintiff was unlicensed, the transaction should be considered illegal and void. In simple terms, they were saying:
👉 “If you lend money like a bank, you must be a bank — and without a licence, your loan is unlawful.”
Q3: What did the court decide?
The court rejected this argument and held that lending money alone does not automatically amount to banking business. The judge explained that a true banking business requires more than just giving loans. Since there was no evidence that the plaintiff accepted deposits, maintained current accounts, or handled cheques, it could not be classified as a bank. Therefore, the loan was valid and enforceable.
Judicial Proceedings
The court emphasised that development finance institutions are specialised financial bodies created to promote economic development, particularly by providing medium- and long-term financing. Their role is different from commercial banks. Although the plaintiff used the word “bank” in its name, this did not automatically make it a bank in law. The court clarified that even if an entity is authorised to use the term “bank,” it does not become a “banker” unless it performs the essential functions of banking.
The judge relied on established legal principles that a banker must typically carry out three key activities: accepting deposits, paying cheques, and collecting cheques. Since the plaintiff did not perform these functions, it could not be said to be carrying on banking business. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s activities were primarily those of a financier, not a banker.
Application
✔ Banking business requires:
Financing ≠ Banking business
Name ≠ Legal status
Comparison with Other Cases
This case is consistent with earlier decisions:
From Vernes Asia Ltd v Trendale Investment Pte Ltd
→ Lending alone is not banking
From Bank of China v Lee Kee Pin
→ Recovering debts is not banking
👉 Common principle:
Only core banking functions together amount to banking business
Additional Legal Insight (Role of Bank as Financier)
The court recognised that banks, when providing loans, act primarily as financiers. This was reinforced in Chang Yun Tai v HSBC Bank (M) Bhd, where it was held that a bank is not responsible for investigating the underlying transaction between its customer and third parties.
Duty of Care (Important Exception)
However, banks still owe a duty of care.
From Anthony Lawrence Bourke v CIMB Bank Bhd
✔ Bank must:
Resolution of the Case Scenario
The plaintiff was NOT carrying on banking business
✔ The loan is valid
✔ The defendants must repay
✔ No breach of Banking Act
Final Exam Rule
A person is not a banker merely because it lends money; banking business requires the combined performance of essential functions such as deposit-taking, account operation, and payment handling.
Case Scenario
A development financial institution in Malaysia provides loans and credit facilities to a company for business purposes. When the company defaults, the institution sues to recover the outstanding amount. The borrower argues that the institution is not a licensed bank and therefore the loan is illegal. The court must determine whether lending money alone amounts to “banking business.”
Q and A
Q1: What was the main issue in Sabah Development Bank Bhd v SKBS (Sabah) Sdn Bhd?
The court had to decide whether a development bank that provides loans without a banking licence is unlawfully carrying on banking business, and whether such loans are therefore invalid.
Q2: What was the defendants’ argument?
The defendants argued that since the plaintiff was not licensed as a bank under the Banking Act 1973, it had no legal right to give loans. They claimed that the lending activity itself amounted to banking business, and because the plaintiff was unlicensed, the transaction should be considered illegal and void. In simple terms, they were saying:
👉 “If you lend money like a bank, you must be a bank — and without a licence, your loan is unlawful.”
Q3: What did the court decide?
The court rejected this argument and held that lending money alone does not automatically amount to banking business. The judge explained that a true banking business requires more than just giving loans. Since there was no evidence that the plaintiff accepted deposits, maintained current accounts, or handled cheques, it could not be classified as a bank. Therefore, the loan was valid and enforceable.
Judicial Proceedings
The court emphasised that development finance institutions are specialised financial bodies created to promote economic development, particularly by providing medium- and long-term financing. Their role is different from commercial banks. Although the plaintiff used the word “bank” in its name, this did not automatically make it a bank in law. The court clarified that even if an entity is authorised to use the term “bank,” it does not become a “banker” unless it performs the essential functions of banking.
The judge relied on established legal principles that a banker must typically carry out three key activities: accepting deposits, paying cheques, and collecting cheques. Since the plaintiff did not perform these functions, it could not be said to be carrying on banking business. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s activities were primarily those of a financier, not a banker.
Application
✔ Banking business requires:
- Accepting deposits
- Maintaining current accounts
- Paying cheques
- Collecting cheques
- Providing finance (as part of a broader system)
- Lending money only
- Providing credit facilities
- Acting as a financier
- Using the word “bank” in name
Financing ≠ Banking business
Name ≠ Legal status
Comparison with Other Cases
This case is consistent with earlier decisions:
From Vernes Asia Ltd v Trendale Investment Pte Ltd
→ Lending alone is not banking
From Bank of China v Lee Kee Pin
→ Recovering debts is not banking
👉 Common principle:
Only core banking functions together amount to banking business
Additional Legal Insight (Role of Bank as Financier)
The court recognised that banks, when providing loans, act primarily as financiers. This was reinforced in Chang Yun Tai v HSBC Bank (M) Bhd, where it was held that a bank is not responsible for investigating the underlying transaction between its customer and third parties.
Duty of Care (Important Exception)
However, banks still owe a duty of care.
From Anthony Lawrence Bourke v CIMB Bank Bhd
✔ Bank must:
- Exercise reasonable skill and care
- Properly disburse loans according to agreement
Resolution of the Case Scenario
- The plaintiff only provided financing ✔
- It did not accept deposits ❌
- It did not operate current accounts ❌
- It did not handle cheques ❌
The plaintiff was NOT carrying on banking business
✔ The loan is valid
✔ The defendants must repay
✔ No breach of Banking Act
Final Exam Rule
A person is not a banker merely because it lends money; banking business requires the combined performance of essential functions such as deposit-taking, account operation, and payment handling.
0 Comments