Malaysian Banking Law – Malaysian Case Scenario on the Definition of a Bank

Malaysian Banking Law – Malaysian Case Scenario on the Definition of a Bank
Scenario
A company called FinWave Digital Sdn Bhd operates in Malaysia through a mobile financial application. The company allows customers to:

Open online accounts,
Deposit money electronically,
Transfer funds to other users,
Make QR and online payments,
Store money digitally,
Apply for short-term financing facilities.

FinWave also issues virtual payment cards and advertises itself as a “modern digital bank.” However, the company does not hold a banking licence under the Financial Services Act 2013.
Several customers later complain after experiencing delays in withdrawing their money. The issue reaches the court, where the main legal question becomes whether FinWave is legally carrying on “banking business” under Malaysian law.

Legal Issue
The court must determine:

Whether FinWave Digital Sdn Bhd is carrying on banking business,
Whether the company legally qualifies as a bank under Malaysian law,
Whether a banking licence is required under the Financial Services Act 2013.

Application of Malaysian Law
Step 1 – Statutory Definition Under the Financial Services Act 2013
The court first refers to section 2(1) of the Financial Services Act 2013.
Under the Act, “banking business” includes:

Accepting deposits,
Paying and collecting cheques,
Providing finance,
Other prescribed financial activities.

The court examines FinWave’s activities and finds that:

Customers deposit money into digital accounts,
Funds are stored by the company,
Financing facilities are provided,
Electronic payment services are offered.

These activities resemble banking business under the Act.

Step 2 – Role of Bank Negara Malaysia
The court also considers the regulatory role of Bank Negara Malaysia.
Under Malaysian law:

Banking business requires proper licensing,
Only authorised institutions may carry on banking business,
Financial activities affecting the public must be regulated for consumer protection and financial stability.

The court notes that FinWave does not possess a banking licence under section 10 of the Financial Services Act 2013.

Step 3 – Judicial Interpretation
The court also considers common law principles from:

United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood,
State Savings Bank of Victoria, Commissioners v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd.

The court focuses on:

The real substance of the activities,
Whether the company acts as a financial intermediary,
Whether deposits are accepted from the public,
Whether payment services are provided continuously.

Even though FinWave does not issue traditional cheques, it performs equivalent electronic payment functions.

Court’s Decision
The court holds that FinWave Digital Sdn Bhd is substantially carrying on banking business because it:

Accepts deposits from customers,
Maintains customer accounts,
Facilitates payment transactions,
Provides financing services,
Operates similarly to modern banking institutions.

The court further holds that:

Banking activities cannot be carried out without proper licensing,
FinWave may be in breach of Malaysian banking laws,
Consumer protection and financial regulation require supervision by Bank Negara Malaysia.

Malaysian Definition Applied in the Case
The court effectively applies the following Malaysian position:
A bank is a licensed financial institution carrying on banking business by accepting deposits, facilitating payments, providing finance, and conducting authorised financial activities regulated under the Financial Services Act 2013.

Critical Analysis
This scenario demonstrates the broader and more modern approach adopted by Malaysian banking law.
Unlike older traditional banking concepts that focused heavily on cheque systems, Malaysian law now recognises:

Electronic payments,
Digital financial services,
Online banking platforms,
Modern payment instruments.

The case also shows that:

Substance is more important than terminology,
A company cannot avoid banking regulation merely by calling itself a “digital platform,”
Financial technology companies may still fall within banking regulation if they perform banking functions.

At the same time, the scenario highlights growing regulatory challenges caused by:

FinTech innovation,
Digital wallets,
Online financial platforms,
Non-traditional financial institutions.

Unresolved Issues
Digital Banking Regulation
Should all digital financial platforms automatically require banking licences?

Consumer Protection
Customers may wrongly assume digital financial companies provide the same protection as licensed banks.

Technological Development
Modern financial technology continues to evolve faster than traditional banking laws.

Conclusion
This Malaysian case scenario demonstrates how courts may apply statutory and judicial principles to determine whether a company is carrying on banking business. Even where traditional cheque systems are absent, an institution may still legally qualify as a bank if it substantially performs deposit-taking, payment, and financing functions. Malaysian law therefore adopts a flexible but strongly regulated approach centred on licensing, consumer protection, and supervision under the Financial Services Act 2013.

Sources of Reference

Financial Services Act 2013
Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989
United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood
State Savings Bank of Victoria, Commissioners v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd
Bank Negara Malaysia

Under section 2(1) of the Financial Services Act 2013, the definition of “banking business” is drafted conjunctively, not disjunctively.
Meaning:
The section says banking business means the business of:
accepting deposits;
paying or collecting cheques; and
provision of finance.
The use of the word “and” suggests that traditionally, all the core elements should exist together.
So your criticism is legally correct:
If FinWave does not pay or collect cheques, then technically it may not fully satisfy the traditional statutory definition under section 2(1)(a).

The Real Legal Complexity
This is exactly why modern banking law becomes difficult.
The statute was originally drafted during a period when:
cheque systems were central to banking,
current accounts and cheque clearing defined banking operations.
Today:
many digital banks barely use cheques,
online transfers replace cheque payments,
QR payments replace paper instruments.
So modern courts and regulators sometimes interpret the provision purposively and functionally rather than literally.

Strict Literal Interpretation
Under a strict statutory reading:
FinWave may NOT qualify fully as carrying on “banking business” because:
it accepts deposits ✔️
it provides finance ✔️
BUT it does not pay or collect cheques ✖️
Therefore, one essential statutory element is missing.
Under this approach:
FinWave might instead fall under:
- payment system operator,
- e-money issuer,
- approved business,
- digital payment provider,
  rather than a licensed bank.
More Accurate Malaysian Legal Position
The better legal argument is:
FinWave is NOT technically a “bank”
under section 2(1) FSA 2013 because it does not satisfy all the traditional statutory elements.
BUT:
It may still fall within:
“approved business,”
payment system operations,
designated payment instrument business,
under Schedule 1 FSA 2013.
This is actually how modern Malaysian regulation works.

Why Regulators Still Control Such Companies
Because the Financial Services Act 2013 separately regulates:
payment systems,
electronic money,
digital payment instruments,
financial technology services.
So even if the company is not legally a “bank,”
it may still require:
approval,
licensing,
supervision by Bank Negara Malaysia.
Better Revised Court Decision
A more legally accurate court conclusion would be:
FinWave is not strictly carrying on “banking business” under section 2(1)(a) of the Financial Services Act 2013 because it does not perform cheque payment and collection functions. However, its activities may constitute approved payment system business or designated payment instrument business regulated under Schedule 1 of the Act.
This is much more doctrinally accurate.

Important Exam / Critical Analysis Point
This creates a major unresolved legal issue:
Does the statutory definition become outdated?
Because modern banking increasingly uses:
instant transfers,
DuitNow,
QR payments,
online banking,
e-wallets,
instead of:
physical cheques.
So the big modern question is:
Should cheque payment still remain an essential legal requirement for banking business?
This is one of the strongest critical analysis points you can raise in Malaysian Banking Law.

LAW

Malaysian Banking Law – Malaysian Case Scenario on the Definition of a Bank

Author

Archives

Categories