LAW

Published on
Malaysian Banking Law: Meaning of “Customer” — Absence of Statutory Definition


Case Scenario
Daniel maintains an account with a bank in Malaysia, while Lina does not have an account but uses the bank to collect payments on her behalf. A dispute arises as to whether both individuals can be considered “customers” under banking law.


Paraphrased Explanation (Q&A Format – Rewritten Clearly)
Q1: Is the term “customer” defined under Malaysian and English statutes?
👉 English statutes (No definition):
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1882
  • Cheques Act 1957 (note: often referenced in Commonwealth context)
👉 Malaysian statutes (No definition):
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1949
  • Financial Services Act 2013
✔ Therefore:
There is no statutory definition of “customer” in both Malaysian and English law.


Q2: Why is there no statutory definition? (Simple explanation)
The law deliberately leaves the term undefined because banking relationships are diverse and constantly evolving. A fixed definition might exclude certain types of relationships that should be legally recognised.


Q3: How is “customer” defined in the United States?
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a customer is:
👉 A person who:
  • Has an account with a bank, OR
  • Uses the bank to collect payments
✔ This definition is broader and includes various types of banking relationships.


Q4: What does the US definition tell us? (Simple understanding)
It shows that the concept of a customer is based on the relationship with the bank, not just deposit-taking.
✔ Includes:
  • Account holders
  • Persons using banking services
  • Even banks dealing with other banks


Application (Note Form)
✔ English law:
  • No statutory definition
  • Relies on case law
✔ Malaysian law:
  • No statutory definition
  • Uses related terms like “depositor”
✔ US law:
  • Provides a broader functional definition
👉 Key idea:
Customer = relationship-based concept (not limited to depositors)


Critical Analysis (Simple Understanding)
The absence of a statutory definition allows courts to interpret “customer” flexibly. This is important because modern banking includes many services beyond deposits, such as loans, payment processing, and advisory services. A rigid definition would fail to capture these evolving relationships.


Resolution of the Case Scenario
  • Daniel (account holder) → ✔ Customer
  • Lina (uses bank services) → ✔ Customer
👉 Therefore:
Both qualify as customers, even without a statutory definition.


Final Exam Rule (Very Important)
The term “customer” is not defined under Malaysian or English statutes; it is interpreted broadly based on the existence of a banking relationship, which may include account holders as well as persons who use banking services such as payment collection.

Picture
0 Comments