Malaysian Banking Law – Customers’ Rights Against the Bank
Case Scenario
Mr. Ahmad maintains both a current account and a fixed deposit account with a bank. He has RM20,000 standing to the credit of his current account and RM100,000 in a fixed deposit account. Mr. Ahmad issues a cheque for RM15,000 to a supplier, but the bank refuses payment despite sufficient funds being available in his account. He also discovers that the bank has delayed repayment of his deposit upon maturity and has failed to credit interest on his fixed deposit account.
Mr. Ahmad contends that the bank has breached its obligations as a banker and seeks to enforce his rights as a customer.


Customers’ Rights
The rights of a bank customer generally fall into three principal categories:
1. Right to Repayment
One of the most fundamental rights of a customer is the right to repayment of money deposited with the bank. The banker-customer relationship is essentially that of debtor and creditor, where the bank becomes indebted to the customer for the amount deposited.
An implied term of the banking contract is that the bank undertakes to repay the customer an equivalent amount to the money deposited. In the case of a current account, repayment is generally made upon demand by the customer. Once a valid demand is made, the bank is under a contractual obligation to honour it, subject to any legal restrictions or contractual limitations.
Accordingly, a customer is entitled to recover the balance standing to the credit of his account and may take legal action if the bank wrongfully refuses repayment.


2. Right to Draw Cheques
A customer who maintains sufficient funds in a current account possesses an implied contractual right to draw cheques against the credit balance available in that account.
Correspondingly, the bank owes an implied duty to honour cheques that are properly drawn and presented for payment, provided that:

• the customer has sufficient funds in the account;
• the cheque is valid and regular on its face;
• there are no legal impediments preventing payment; and
• the account has not been frozen, closed, or otherwise restricted.

However, a customer cannot insist that the bank honour a cheque exceeding the available credit balance unless an overdraft facility or other financing arrangement has been previously agreed upon between the parties.
Where a bank wrongfully dishonours a customer’s cheque despite sufficient funds being available, the customer may be entitled to damages for breach of contract. In certain circumstances, damages may extend to injury to reputation, particularly where the customer is engaged in business.


3. Right to Interest
Customers who maintain deposit accounts, such as savings accounts or fixed deposit accounts, are generally entitled to receive interest or returns on their deposited funds in accordance with the terms of the account.
The applicable interest rate is not fixed permanently and may vary according to prevailing market conditions, regulatory requirements, and the bank’s policies.
In contrast, customers holding ordinary current accounts are generally not entitled to receive interest on positive balances unless the account specifically provides otherwise.
Therefore, a depositor is entitled to receive interest or returns where such payment forms part of the contractual arrangement governing the deposit account.


Critical Analysis
The three rights collectively ensure fairness and confidence in the banking system.
The right to repayment safeguards customer ownership of deposited funds and reinforces the bank’s contractual obligation as debtor. Without this right, public confidence in banking institutions would be significantly undermined.
The right to draw cheques facilitates commercial transactions and enables customers to use banking services effectively. A wrongful refusal to honour cheques may damage a customer’s business reputation and disrupt commercial dealings.
The right to interest reflects the economic benefit that customers receive for allowing the bank to utilise deposited funds. It also promotes savings and investment activities within the financial system.
Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. Banks may lawfully refuse payment where there are insufficient funds, legal restrictions, court orders, anti-money laundering concerns, or contractual limitations. Similarly, entitlement to interest depends entirely on the terms governing the particular account.


Solution to the Case Scenario
Mr. Ahmad would likely succeed in his claim against the bank for the following reasons:

1. Wrongful Dishonour of Cheque
   • Since RM20,000 was available in his current account and the cheque amounted to only RM15,000, the bank was under a contractual duty to honour the cheque.
   • The refusal to pay constitutes a breach of the banker-customer contract.
2. Failure to Repay Deposit
   • Upon maturity of the fixed deposit and a valid demand by the customer, the bank is obliged to repay the deposited amount.
   • Any unjustified refusal or delay may amount to a breach of contract.
3. Failure to Credit Interest
   • If the fixed deposit agreement provides for interest payments, the bank must pay such interest according to the agreed terms.
   • Failure to do so entitles the customer to claim the unpaid amount.

Mr. Ahmad may therefore seek repayment of his deposit, recovery of unpaid interest, and damages arising from the wrongful dishonour of the cheque.


Practical Application
In practice, customers should:

• Monitor account balances regularly.
• Ensure sufficient funds are available before issuing cheques.
• Review deposit account terms relating to interest payments.
• Retain account statements and transaction records as evidence.
• Promptly notify the bank of any wrongful refusal to honour payment instructions.

Banks, on the other hand, should:

• Honour valid payment instructions where sufficient funds exist.
• Process repayment requests promptly.
• Accurately calculate and credit interest according to contractual terms.
• Maintain efficient internal controls to avoid wrongful dishonour claims.

Conclusion
Under Malaysian banking law, customers enjoy three essential contractual rights: the right to repayment of deposited funds, the right to draw cheques against available credit balances, and the right to receive interest where contractually provided. These rights arise from the implied terms of the banker-customer relationship and form the foundation of modern banking operations. A bank that unjustifiably refuses repayment, wrongfully dishonours a cheque, or fails to pay agreed interest may be liable for breach of contract and the resulting losses suffered by the customer.

​

​Malaysian Banking Law – Whistleblowing in Relation to Market Misconduct


Introduction


The integrity and stability of Malaysia’s financial system depend not only on laws prohibiting misconduct but also on the willingness of individuals to report wrongdoing when it occurs.


Recognising that regulators may not always be able to detect misconduct immediately, the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) and the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA 2013) encourage persons with knowledge of illegal activities to come forward and report such conduct to Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).


This process is known as whistleblowing.


Under section 256 of the Financial Services Act 2013 and section 267 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, market participants may report information to BNM in good faith where they have knowledge or information that a contravention of financial services laws or regulatory requirements has been committed or is about to be committed.


⸻


Definition of Whistleblowing


Whistleblowing refers to the act of reporting suspected wrongdoing, misconduct, illegal activity, or regulatory breaches to the appropriate authority.


In the context of Malaysian banking law, whistleblowing occurs when a person informs Bank Negara Malaysia that:

• A contravention has occurred;

• A contravention is currently occurring; or

• A contravention is likely to occur in the future.

The report must be made:

• Honestly;

• In good faith; and

• Based on information or knowledge reasonably believed to be true.

⸻


The Simplest Meaning of Whistleblowing


Whistleblowing simply means:


“If you know someone in the financial market is breaking the law, report it to Bank Negara Malaysia.”


The purpose is to prevent harm before it becomes widespread.


⸻


Who Can Be a Whistleblower?


A whistleblower may be:

• A bank employee;

• A treasury dealer;

• A compliance officer;

• A risk management officer;

• A trader;

• A broker;

• An auditor;

• A director;

• A customer; or

• Any person who possesses relevant information.

The person does not need to be directly involved in the misconduct.


⸻


What Can Be Reported?


Market participants may report information relating to prohibited conduct under the FSA 2013 and IFSA 2013.


Examples include:


Market Manipulation

• Wash trades;

• Spoofing;

• Benchmark manipulation;

• Price flashing;

• Artificial market activity.

Misinformation and Rumour

• Spreading false market information;

• Circulating misleading statements;

• Disseminating unverified rumours that affect markets.

Insider Dealing

• Trading based on confidential information;

• Sharing insider information with others;

• Profiting from non-public information.

Other Regulatory Breaches

• Fraud;

• False reporting;

• Misconduct by financial institutions;

• Breaches of regulatory requirements.

⸻


Case Scenario


Suspicious Treasury Trading


A treasury executive at ABC Bank Berhad notices unusual trading activity by a senior foreign exchange dealer.


The executive observes that:

• Large buy and sell orders are repeatedly entered into the trading platform.

• The orders are cancelled moments later.

• The dealer appears to benefit from the resulting price movements.

The executive suspects that the dealer is engaging in spoofing, a form of market manipulation.


A few weeks later, the executive also learns that the same dealer has been sharing confidential market-sensitive information with an external acquaintance before major transactions occur.


The executive believes that the dealer may be involved in:

• Market manipulation; and

• Insider dealing.

Concerned about the integrity of the market, the executive reports the information to Bank Negara Malaysia.


BNM commences an investigation.


The investigation subsequently confirms that the dealer had engaged in spoofing and insider dealing.


⸻


Application to the Case Scenario


The treasury executive possessed information suggesting that serious regulatory breaches had occurred.


The suspected conduct involved:


Market Manipulation


The repeated placement and cancellation of orders suggested spoofing.


Insider Dealing


The disclosure of confidential information to external parties suggested insider dealing.


Rather than ignoring the misconduct, the executive reported the information to Bank Negara Malaysia in good faith.


The executive therefore acted as a whistleblower under section 256 FSA 2013 and section 267 IFSA 2013.


⸻


Solution to the Case Scenario


The treasury executive observed conduct that reasonably appeared to constitute market manipulation and insider dealing.


The executive:

• Gathered relevant information;

• Acted honestly;

• Reported the matter in good faith; and

• Alerted Bank Negara Malaysia to potential regulatory breaches.

The subsequent investigation confirmed the misconduct.


Accordingly:


The Executive

• Performed a legitimate whistleblowing function.

• Assisted regulatory enforcement.

• Helped protect market integrity.

The Dealer


May face:

• Criminal prosecution;

• Civil enforcement proceedings;

• Administrative penalties;

• Regulatory sanctions; and

• Internal disciplinary action.

The whistleblowing report enabled BNM to detect and stop unlawful conduct that might otherwise have continued.


⸻


Why Is Whistleblowing Important?


Many financial crimes occur behind closed doors.


Regulators cannot observe every transaction in real time.


Employees and insiders often become aware of misconduct before regulators do.


Whistleblowing therefore helps:

• Detect misconduct early;

• Prevent further harm;

• Protect investors;

• Protect financial institutions;

• Preserve market confidence;

• Support regulatory enforcement; and

• Maintain financial stability.

⸻


Simple Example


Imagine a school examination.


A student discovers that another student has secretly obtained the examination paper before the exam.


The student reports the misconduct to the teacher.


The teacher investigates and discovers cheating.


The reporting student is the whistleblower.


The same principle applies in banking.


A person who becomes aware of market misconduct reports it to Bank Negara Malaysia so that appropriate action can be taken.


⸻


Difference Between a Whistleblower and an Offender


Whistleblower

• Reports wrongdoing.

• Acts honestly.

• Cooperates with regulators.

• Helps prevent misconduct.

• Protects market integrity.

Offender

• Commits misconduct.

• Conceals wrongdoing.

• Misleads market participants.

• Breaches financial laws.

• Undermines market confidence.

⸻


Practical Application


Whistleblowing is particularly important in:

• Treasury departments;

• Foreign exchange trading desks;

• Money market operations;

• Investment banking divisions;

• Compliance departments;

• Risk management units; and

• Financial market dealing rooms.

Employees should report suspicious conduct such as:

• Spoofing;

• Wash trades;

• Insider dealing;

• False market rumours;

• Unusual trading activity; and

• Regulatory breaches.

Early reporting can prevent substantial financial harm.


⸻


Critical Analysis


Whistleblowing plays a crucial role in modern financial regulation because regulators frequently depend upon information from insiders to detect misconduct.


Market manipulation, misinformation, and insider dealing are often deliberately concealed and may be difficult to identify through surveillance systems alone. Employees working within financial institutions are often the first to observe suspicious conduct.


The whistleblowing provisions under the FSA 2013 and IFSA 2013 therefore serve as an important enforcement mechanism by encouraging individuals to report wrongdoing before it causes widespread damage.


However, whistleblowing must be carried out responsibly. Reports should be made honestly and based on genuine concerns rather than personal grievances or malicious motives. The requirement that disclosures be made in good faith helps ensure that the system is not abused.


Overall, whistleblowing strengthens accountability, transparency, and market integrity within Malaysia’s financial system.


⸻


Conclusion


Under section 256 of the Financial Services Act 2013 and section 267 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, market participants may report suspected misconduct to Bank Negara Malaysia in good faith.


Whistleblowing may relate to offences such as:

• Market manipulation;

• Misinformation and rumour;

• Insider dealing; and

• Other regulatory breaches.

A whistleblower is not the wrongdoer. Rather, the whistleblower assists regulators by reporting suspected misconduct so that appropriate enforcement action can be taken.


By encouraging the reporting of unlawful conduct, whistleblowing helps preserve market integrity, protect investors, support regulatory enforcement, and maintain confidence in Malaysia’s financial markets.

Malaysian Banking Law – Misinformation and Rumour in the Wholesale Financial Market
Introduction
Financial markets function efficiently only when market participants make decisions based on accurate, reliable, and truthful information. The spread of false information, misleading statements, or unverified rumours can distort market behaviour, affect prices, undermine investor confidence, and threaten financial stability.
To preserve the integrity of Malaysia’s wholesale financial markets, section 141(1)(c) of the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) and section 153(1)(d) of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA 2013) prohibit the making or dissemination of false or misleading statements or information that may influence trading decisions or affect market rates in the money market or foreign exchange market.
These provisions are further reinforced by the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets issued by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).


Definition of Misinformation and Rumour
Misinformation and rumour occur when a person makes a statement or disseminates information that is false or misleading in a material respect and which is likely:

• To induce another person to deal in financial instruments; or
• To raise, lower, maintain, or stabilise the market rate of financial instruments in the money market or foreign exchange market.

The prohibition applies where the person:
(1) Fails to Exercise Due Care
The person does not take reasonable steps to verify whether the information is true or false before communicating it.
or
(2) Knows or Ought Reasonably to Know It Is False
The person knows, or a reasonable person in the same circumstances should have known, that the information is false or materially misleading.
Accordingly, liability may arise not only from deliberate lies but also from reckless or careless dissemination of unverified information.


Why Is Misinformation Dangerous?
Financial markets are heavily influenced by information.
Traders constantly react to:

• Economic news;
• Government announcements;
• Central bank policies;
• Market reports;
• Corporate developments; and
• Foreign exchange information.

If false information enters the market, participants may make decisions based on incorrect assumptions.
This may result in:

• Artificial price movements;
• Unnecessary panic;
• Distorted supply and demand;
• Investor losses;
• Reduced confidence in the market; and
• Financial instability.

Common Forms of Misinformation and Rumour
Without limiting the broad scope of sections 141 FSA 2013 and 153 IFSA 2013, the following conduct may constitute an offence.
(A) Starting and Spreading Rumours to Move the Market
A person deliberately creates or spreads false rumours to influence market prices or deceive market participants.
Examples

• Spreading false information that a bank is facing liquidity problems.
• Claiming that a government policy announcement is imminent when it is not.
• Circulating false reports that a central bank intends to intervene in the foreign exchange market.
• Fabricating news regarding the issuance of government securities.

The objective is often to manipulate market behaviour for personal gain.


(B) Carelessly Repeating Unverified Information
A person discusses or circulates information without taking reasonable steps to verify its accuracy.
The information may:

• Be unsubstantiated;
• Be false;
• Be materially misleading; and
• Cause harm to third parties.

Examples

• Forwarding unverified market reports.
• Sharing unconfirmed rumours with traders.
• Repeating speculative information as fact.
• Distributing unverified information concerning another financial institution.

Even where there is no intention to deceive, liability may arise if due care was not exercised.


Simple Example
Scenario
A trader receives a message claiming that the Malaysian Government is planning to impose emergency foreign exchange controls.
The trader has no evidence that the information is true.
Without checking the accuracy of the information, the trader immediately shares it with several banks and foreign exchange dealers.
As the rumour spreads:

• Traders become concerned.
• Market participants rush to buy foreign currencies.
• The Ringgit weakens.
• Foreign exchange rates move significantly.

Several hours later, the Government officially denies the rumour.
The information was false from the beginning.
The trader may have committed an offence because he disseminated false information without exercising due care.


Banking Example
Case Scenario
A treasury dealer at ABC Bank Berhad learns from an informal conversation that Bank XYZ may be experiencing financial difficulties.
The dealer has no documentary evidence and has not verified the information.
Believing that the rumour may affect the market, the dealer sends messages to several market participants stating that Bank XYZ is facing a severe liquidity crisis and may require regulatory intervention.
The information spreads rapidly throughout the wholesale financial market.
As a result:

• Other banks become reluctant to deal with Bank XYZ.
• Market confidence declines.
• Foreign exchange traders react negatively.
• The market value of Bank XYZ’s financial instruments falls.
• Funding costs for Bank XYZ increase.

Subsequent investigations reveal that Bank XYZ was financially sound and that the information was entirely false.
Further investigation shows that the dealer either knew the information was unreliable or failed to take reasonable steps to verify its accuracy before disseminating it.


Application to the Case Scenario
The treasury dealer disseminated information that was false or materially misleading.
The dealer’s statements were capable of:

• Influencing trading decisions;
• Affecting market confidence;
• Lowering the value of financial instruments;
• Influencing foreign exchange activity; and
• Causing other market participants to alter their behaviour.

The dealer failed to verify the information before circulating it and therefore did not exercise due care.
Alternatively, if evidence shows that the dealer knew the information was false, liability becomes even clearer.
The conduct therefore falls within section 141(1)(c) FSA 2013 and section 153(1)(d) IFSA 2013.


Solution to the Case Scenario
In this scenario, the treasury dealer circulated false information regarding the financial condition of Bank XYZ.
The information was likely to influence the behaviour of other market participants and affect market conditions.
The dealer either:

• Failed to exercise reasonable care to verify the information; or
• Knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the information was false or materially misleading.

Accordingly, the dealer may have committed an offence under:

• Section 141(1)(c) Financial Services Act 2013; and
• Section 153(1)(d) Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.

Bank Negara Malaysia may therefore initiate:

• Criminal proceedings;
• Civil enforcement action;
• Administrative penalties;
• Regulatory sanctions; and
• Disciplinary action against the dealer.

Where weaknesses in compliance controls or supervision contributed to the misconduct, enforcement action may also be taken against ABC Bank Berhad.


Difference Between Genuine Market Information and Misinformation
Genuine Market Information

• Information is verified before dissemination.
• Reasonable investigation has been conducted.
• Facts are supported by evidence.
• Information is presented accurately.
• No intention to mislead the market.
• Supports informed decision-making.
• Enhances market transparency.

Misinformation and Rumour

• Information is false or materially misleading.
• Information is unverified or unsupported.
• Reasonable care is not exercised.
• Information may be knowingly false.
• Market participants are misled.
• Trading decisions are distorted.
• Market confidence may be harmed.

Practical Application
The prohibition against misinformation and rumour is particularly relevant to:

• Treasury dealers;
• Foreign exchange traders;
• Money market participants;
• Investment bankers;
• Bank executives;
• Financial analysts;
• Market commentators; and
• Employees of financial institutions.

Before disseminating information, market participants should:

• Verify facts from reliable sources;
• Confirm information through official channels;
• Exercise professional judgment;
• Avoid repeating unverified rumours;
• Maintain proper records of information sources; and
• Comply with internal compliance procedures.

The principle is simple:
“Verify first, communicate later.”


Critical Analysis
The prohibition against misinformation and rumour reflects the importance of information integrity in modern financial markets.
Unlike traditional forms of market manipulation, misinformation can spread rapidly through electronic communication platforms, social media, messaging applications, and trading networks. A single false statement can affect thousands of market participants within minutes.
The legislation therefore imposes liability not only on persons who deliberately spread false information but also on those who recklessly or carelessly disseminate unverified information without exercising due care.
This approach is justified because market participants, particularly professional traders and financial institutions, occupy positions of trust and influence. Their statements can significantly affect market behaviour.
However, regulators must carefully distinguish between:

• Genuine opinions;
• Legitimate market speculation;
• Honest mistakes; and
• Deliberate or reckless misinformation.

The challenge lies in balancing market freedom of expression with the need to preserve market integrity and investor confidence.
The provisions therefore serve an important preventive function by encouraging accuracy, responsibility, and professionalism in financial communications.


Conclusion
Under section 141(1)(c) of the Financial Services Act 2013 and section 153(1)(d) of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, it is an offence to make or disseminate information that is false or materially misleading and which is likely to influence trading activity or affect market rates in the money market or foreign exchange market.
Liability may arise where a person:

• Fails to exercise due care regarding the truth of the information; or
• Knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the information is false or misleading.

Common examples include:

• Starting rumours to move markets;
• Spreading false information about financial institutions;
• Circulating misleading market reports; and
• Repeating unverified information without proper verification.

Such conduct undermines market integrity, distorts trading decisions, and threatens confidence in Malaysia’s wholesale financial markets. Consequently, offenders may face criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement action under the FSA 2013 and IFSA 2013.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Spoofing
Definition
Spoofing is a form of market manipulation whereby a trader places bids or offers in the market with no genuine intention of executing the transaction. The trader’s real objective is to create a false impression of market demand, supply, liquidity, or price movement in order to influence the behaviour of other market participants.
After other traders react to the apparent demand or supply, the spoofer cancels the orders before they are executed.
Spoofing is specifically recognised as an example of market manipulation under the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets and falls within the prohibitions against creating a false or misleading appearance of active dealing under section 141 of the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) and section 153 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA 2013).


How Spoofing Works
A spoofer typically:

1. Places a large buy order or sell order.
2. Has no genuine intention of completing the transaction.
3. Creates the appearance of strong demand or supply.
4. Causes other traders to react to the apparent market movement.
5. Cancels the original order before execution.
6. Profits from the resulting market reaction.

The deception lies in the fact that the displayed order is not genuine.


Simple Example
Scenario
A trader wants to buy a government bond at a lower price.
The trader places a very large sell order into the electronic trading system.
Other market participants observe the large sell order and believe:

• There is significant selling pressure;
• Prices are likely to fall;
• Demand is weakening.

As a result, some investors begin selling the bond.
The market price falls.
Before the large sell order is executed, the trader cancels it and purchases the bond at the now lower price.
The original order was never intended to be executed.
This conduct is known as spoofing.


Banking Example
Case Scenario
A treasury dealer at ABC Bank Berhad wishes to purchase a large amount of foreign currency at a favourable exchange rate.
The dealer enters multiple large sell orders into an electronic trading platform, creating the appearance that substantial quantities of the currency are about to be sold.
Other dealers respond by lowering their prices.
Before the orders can be matched and executed, the dealer cancels them.
The dealer then purchases the currency at the newly reduced market price.
An investigation later reveals that the dealer never intended to complete the original sell orders.
The dealer’s conduct constitutes spoofing and may amount to market manipulation under section 141 FSA 2013 and section 153 IFSA 2013.


Why Is Spoofing Harmful?
Spoofing distorts the market because it creates false signals regarding:
Supply
The market may wrongly believe that large quantities of a financial instrument are available for sale.
Demand
The market may wrongly believe that significant buying interest exists.
Liquidity
Participants may incorrectly assume there is more market liquidity than actually exists.
Price Discovery
Prices may move based on deceptive information rather than genuine market forces.
As a result, investors and institutions make decisions based on false market information.


Difference Between Genuine Trading and Spoofing
Genuine Trading

• Trader intends to execute the order.
• Commercial purpose exists.
• Order reflects genuine demand or supply.
• Market information is accurate.
• No intention to mislead other participants.
• Supports proper price discovery.

Spoofing

• Trader never intends to execute the order.
• Order is entered solely to influence the market.
• Creates artificial demand or supply.
• Generates false market signals.
• Intends to mislead other participants.
• Distorts price discovery.

Difference Between Wash Trade and Spoofing
Wash Trade

• Involves actual transactions being executed.
• Same person or colluding parties effectively act as buyer and seller.
• Creates artificial trading volume.
• Gives a false impression of market activity.
• Transaction is completed.

Spoofing

• Usually involves orders that are never executed.
• Trader places orders intending to cancel them.
• Creates artificial demand or supply.
• Gives a false impression of market interest.
• Order is normally cancelled before execution.

Key Distinction
Wash trade = fake transaction.
Spoofing = fake order.
A wash trade creates a false impression through an executed trade, whereas spoofing creates a false impression through a deceptive order that is usually cancelled before execution.


Application to Malaysian Banking Law
Under the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets, spoofing is specifically identified as prohibited conduct.
The Code describes spoofing as:
Bidding or offering with an intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution in order to mislead the market.
Such conduct creates a false or misleading appearance regarding:

• Market demand;
• Market supply;
• Market liquidity; and
• Market prices.

Consequently, spoofing may constitute market manipulation under:

• Section 141 Financial Services Act 2013; and
• Section 153 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.

Critical Analysis
Spoofing has become increasingly prevalent in modern electronic markets because orders can be placed and cancelled within milliseconds using sophisticated trading systems.
Unlike traditional market manipulation, spoofing may not involve completed transactions, making detection more difficult. Regulators therefore focus on trading patterns, cancellation rates, timing of orders, and the trader’s intent.
The key legal issue is not whether the order was executed but whether the trader genuinely intended to execute it when it was entered.
If orders are repeatedly entered solely to influence market perception and then cancelled before execution, regulators may infer manipulative intent.
For this reason, regulators such as Bank Negara Malaysia employ advanced surveillance systems to monitor electronic trading activity and identify suspicious conduct.


Conclusion
Spoofing is a form of market manipulation in which a trader places bids or offers without any genuine intention of executing them and instead intends to cancel them after influencing the market.
Its purpose is generally to:

• Create artificial demand or supply;
• Mislead market participants;
• Influence market prices;
• Distort liquidity perceptions; and
• Generate trading advantages.

Unlike a wash trade, which involves an executed artificial transaction, spoofing involves a deceptive order that is usually cancelled before execution.
Because spoofing creates a false or misleading appearance of market activity, it is prohibited under the Financial Services Act 2013, the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013, and the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets, and may result in criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Market Manipulation in the Wholesale Financial Market
Introduction
The integrity of Malaysia’s financial system depends heavily on fair and transparent market practices. Market participants must not engage in activities that distort prices, create artificial market conditions, or mislead other participants regarding the true state of the market.
To preserve confidence in the financial system, section 141 of the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) and section 153 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA 2013) prohibit various forms of market manipulation in the money market and foreign exchange market. These provisions are further reinforced by the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets issued by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).
Market manipulation is regarded as a serious offence because it undermines market integrity, interferes with genuine price discovery, and creates unfair advantages for certain market participants.


Definition of Wholesale Financial Market
A Wholesale Financial Market refers to a market in which large-scale financial transactions are conducted between institutional participants rather than individual retail customers.
Participants commonly include:

• Banks;
• Investment banks;
• Islamic banks;
• Development financial institutions;
• Insurance companies;
• Takaful operators;
• Pension funds;
• Asset management companies;
• Government agencies;
• Corporations; and
• Other institutional investors.

Transactions in the wholesale financial market generally involve:

• Foreign exchange (FX);
• Money market instruments;
• Government securities;
• Bonds;
• Sukuk;
• Derivatives;
• Interest rate products; and
• Other financial instruments.

Because these transactions involve substantial sums and affect the wider economy, market participants are expected to comply with the highest standards of honesty, professionalism, and transparency.


Case Scenario
XYZ Bank Berhad operates a large treasury department that actively trades foreign exchange and government securities in Malaysia’s wholesale financial market.
As the end of a trading day approaches, a senior foreign exchange dealer notices that the bank’s profitability targets for the quarter may not be achieved. To improve the bank’s reported trading performance, the dealer places a series of large foreign exchange orders designed solely to influence the closing market rate.
The dealer has no genuine intention of completing several of the transactions. Some orders are cancelled immediately after other market participants react to them. In addition, the dealer collaborates with traders from another financial institution to submit coordinated quotations that artificially influence a benchmark fixing rate used in the market.
The dealer also enters numerous buy and sell orders through an electronic trading platform without any intention to execute the transactions. The objective is to create the appearance of strong market demand and liquidity so that other participants will trade at prices favourable to the dealer.
Following a routine market surveillance exercise, Bank Negara Malaysia identifies unusual trading patterns and commences an investigation.


Statutory Prohibition of Market Manipulation
Section 141 Financial Services Act 2013
Section 141 of the Financial Services Act 2013 prohibits a person from:
1. Creating Artificial Rates
A person must not participate in or carry out any transaction that has, or is likely to have, the effect of creating an off-market rate which results in an artificial rate for dealing in financial instruments within the:

• Money market; or
• Foreign exchange market.

The law seeks to ensure that market prices and rates reflect genuine economic activity and legitimate market forces rather than manipulation.


2. Creating a False or Misleading Appearance
A person must not create or cause anything that creates a false or misleading appearance of active dealing in financial instruments within the:

• Money market; or
• Foreign exchange market.

The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent conduct that deceives market participants into believing that there is genuine trading activity, demand, supply, or liquidity when this is not actually the case.


Examples of Market Manipulation
Without limiting the broad scope of sections 141 FSA 2013 and 153 IFSA 2013, the following conduct constitutes market manipulation.
(A) Influencing the Closing Price
This occurs where a person trades with the intention of benefiting from influencing the closing price of a financial instrument.
The objective is not genuine trading but artificially affecting the market’s closing valuation for personal or institutional gain.
Example
A dealer executes a large volume of transactions shortly before market close solely to push prices higher and improve the valuation of securities held by the bank.


(B) Interfering with Normal Supply and Demand
This occurs when a person interferes with ordinary market forces so that prices no longer reflect genuine supply and demand.
Examples include:
Wash Trades
Transactions where the same person is effectively both the buyer and seller, creating the illusion of market activity without any real change in ownership.
Stop-Loss Hunting
Deliberately moving market prices to trigger other traders’ stop-loss orders for the manipulator’s advantage.
Such conduct distorts market conditions and misleads participants.


(C) Trading Without Genuine Commercial Intention
Market participants must have a legitimate trading or commercial purpose when entering transactions.
A transaction entered solely to manipulate prices, influence perceptions, or mislead other market participants may constitute market manipulation.
Example
Entering large transactions solely to affect market prices without any real economic purpose.


(D) Manipulating Benchmark Fixing Rates
Benchmark rates are widely used in financial markets to price transactions and determine contractual obligations.
Manipulation occurs where traders:

• Collude with others;
• Coordinate quotations; or
• Submit false information

for the purpose of influencing benchmark fixing rates.
Example
Several traders cooperate to submit artificial foreign exchange quotations that influence a benchmark reference rate.


(E) Spoofing
Spoofing occurs when a trader places bids or offers with the intention of cancelling them before execution.
The objective is to mislead other market participants regarding genuine market demand or supply.
Example
A trader places a large purchase order to create the impression of strong demand but cancels the order immediately before execution.


(F) Price Flashing
Price flashing occurs when a person enters prices into an electronic trading or broking platform without any genuine intention to trade.
The purpose is to create a false impression regarding:

• Market prices;
• Liquidity;
• Supply; or
• Demand.

Example
A trader repeatedly displays attractive buying prices to lure participants into the market before withdrawing those quotations.


Application to the Case Scenario
The conduct of the dealer at XYZ Bank Berhad falls squarely within the statutory prohibitions against market manipulation.
First, the dealer attempted to influence the closing foreign exchange rate through large transactions entered near the end of the trading session. This constitutes trading with the intention of benefiting from influencing the closing price of a financial instrument.
Second, the dealer entered orders without any genuine intention of executing them. Such conduct amounts to spoofing and demonstrates an absence of legitimate commercial intent.
Third, the dealer collaborated with traders from another institution to influence a benchmark fixing rate. This represents benchmark manipulation through collusion.
Fourth, the dealer entered numerous orders on an electronic trading platform merely to create the appearance of market demand and liquidity. This amounts to price flashing and creates a false or misleading appearance of active dealing.
The dealer therefore engaged in several forms of market manipulation prohibited under section 141 FSA 2013 and section 153 IFSA 2013.


Solution to the Case Scenario
In this scenario, the senior dealer deliberately attempted to distort the operation of the wholesale financial market.
The dealer:

• Influenced the closing market rate for personal or institutional advantage;
• Entered transactions without genuine trading intentions;
• Manipulated benchmark fixing rates through collusion with other traders;
• Used spoofing techniques by placing and cancelling orders; and
• Engaged in price flashing to create a false appearance of market liquidity.

These actions constitute market manipulation under section 141 of the Financial Services Act 2013 and section 153 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.
Accordingly, Bank Negara Malaysia may commence:

• Criminal proceedings;
• Civil enforcement actions;
• Administrative penalties;
• Regulatory sanctions; and
• Disciplinary actions against the dealer.

If weaknesses in supervision, governance, compliance systems, or risk management contributed to the misconduct, regulatory action may also be taken against XYZ Bank Berhad.


Practical Application
The prohibition against market manipulation is particularly relevant to:

• Treasury departments;
• Foreign exchange dealers;
• Money market traders;
• Bond traders;
• Sukuk traders;
• Investment bankers;
• Electronic trading platform operators; and
• Financial market intermediaries.

Banks should therefore:

• Establish strong compliance controls;
• Monitor trading activities in real time;
• Implement surveillance systems;
• Maintain clear audit trails;
• Conduct regular compliance training;
• Enforce ethical dealing standards;
• Monitor benchmark submissions; and
• Investigate suspicious trading behaviour promptly.

These measures reduce the risk of market abuse and help preserve confidence in the financial system.


Critical Analysis
The prohibition on market manipulation is fundamental to ensuring that financial markets operate efficiently and fairly. Financial markets rely upon genuine supply and demand to determine prices and allocate capital effectively.
Manipulative practices such as spoofing, wash trades, benchmark manipulation, and price flashing undermine the reliability of market prices and distort investment decisions. If left unchecked, such conduct can erode confidence among market participants and weaken the stability of the financial system.
The broad wording of sections 141 FSA 2013 and 153 IFSA 2013 demonstrates the legislature’s intention to capture both traditional and technologically sophisticated forms of market abuse. This is particularly important in modern markets where electronic trading systems allow manipulation to occur rapidly and across multiple jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, enforcement remains challenging. Regulators must distinguish between legitimate trading strategies and manipulative conduct, often requiring sophisticated surveillance technology and detailed market analysis. Consequently, effective enforcement depends not only on legislation but also on robust monitoring systems, strong corporate governance, and a culture of compliance within financial institutions.
The provisions therefore serve both a punitive and preventative function by deterring misconduct while promoting market integrity and investor confidence.


Conclusion
Market manipulation is a serious offence under section 141 of the Financial Services Act 2013 and section 153 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.
These provisions prohibit conduct that:

• Creates artificial market rates;
• Produces false or misleading appearances of market activity;
• Interferes with genuine supply and demand;
• Manipulates benchmark fixing rates;
• Involves spoofing;
• Involves wash trades;
• Involves stop-loss hunting; and
• Involves price flashing on electronic trading platforms.

Within Malaysia’s wholesale financial markets, participants are expected to conduct business honestly, transparently, and with genuine commercial intent. Any person who engages in market manipulation may face criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement action. These prohibitions play a vital role in maintaining market integrity, ensuring fair price discovery, protecting investors, and preserving confidence in Malaysia’s financial system.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Insider Dealing in the Wholesale Financial Market
Introduction
Financial markets operate fairly only when all participants trade using information that is generally available to the market.
If a person possesses confidential information that is not available to other traders and uses that information to make a profit or avoid a loss, that person gains an unfair advantage over other market participants.
To ensure fairness and market integrity, section 141(1)(d) of the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) and section 153(1)(e) of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA 2013) prohibit insider dealing in the money market and foreign exchange market.
The prohibition is also reinforced by the Code of Conduct for Malaysia Wholesale Financial Markets issued by Bank Negara Malaysia.


The Simplest Meaning of Insider Dealing
Insider dealing simply means:
Using secret information that other people do not know in order to make money or obtain an advantage in the market.
The information must be:

• Not generally available to the public;
• Not generally available to regular market participants;
• Important enough to affect market prices; and
• Capable of influencing trading decisions.

In simple terms:
You know something important before everyone else, and you trade because of that information.
That is insider dealing.


What Does The Law Prohibit?
Section 141(1)(d) FSA 2013 and section 153(1)(e) IFSA 2013 prohibit a person from:
Taking part in or carrying out a transaction based on information that is not generally available to persons who regularly deal in the money market or foreign exchange market, where the information would have a material effect on the price or value of financial instruments.


Breaking It Down into Simple Parts
The law asks four questions:
Question 1
Did the person possess information?
Yes.


Question 2
Was the information secret or confidential?
In other words:

• The public did not know.
• Other traders did not know.
• The information had not been announced.

Yes.


Question 3
Would the information affect market prices if it became known?
Yes.
The information is important enough to influence market behaviour.


Question 4
Did the person trade based on that information?
Yes.
If all four answers are “yes,” insider dealing may have occurred.


Simple Example
Scenario
A treasury dealer at ABC Bank Berhad learns through internal communications that the Malaysian Government will announce a major policy tomorrow that is expected to strengthen the Ringgit significantly.
The information has not yet been announced publicly.
Only a small number of people know about it.
The dealer immediately buys a large amount of Ringgit before the announcement.
The next day:

• The Government makes the announcement.
• The Ringgit strengthens sharply.
• The dealer earns a substantial profit.

Why Is This Insider Dealing?
The dealer:
Knew Secret Information
The announcement had not yet been released.


Knew It Would Affect Prices
The information was likely to strengthen the Ringgit.


Traded Before Everyone Else
The dealer bought Ringgit before the public knew.


Made a Profit Because of the Secret Information
The profit was generated from the informational advantage.
This is insider dealing.


Another Simple Example
Imagine an examination.
One student secretly obtains tomorrow’s examination paper.
Before the exam:

• The student studies all the questions.
• Other students do not know the questions.

The next day the student scores highest.
Why?
Because the student had information unavailable to everyone else.
Insider dealing works in a similar way.
The insider gains an unfair advantage because of confidential information.


Common Forms of Insider Dealing
Without limiting the scope of the FSA 2013 and IFSA 2013, insider dealing includes:
(1) Profiting from Insider Information
A person uses confidential information to:

• Make a profit;
• Avoid a loss;
• Improve trading results; or
• Obtain a financial advantage.

This may occur intentionally or through negligence.
Example
A trader learns confidentially that interest rates will increase tomorrow and immediately adjusts the bank’s trading position before the public announcement.


(2) Giving Insider Information to Others
A person may also commit an offence by providing confidential information to another person.
The recipient may then use the information to:

• Make profits;
• Benefit clients;
• Benefit the institution;
• Benefit friends or family members; or
• Benefit third parties.

Example
A treasury dealer tells a friend:
“The Ringgit will strengthen tomorrow because of an announcement I have seen.”
The friend buys Ringgit and profits.
Both individuals may face liability.


Disclosure of Insider Information
Market participants who possess insider information must not disclose it to others.
Disclosure is only permitted where it is:
Part of Employment Duties
Example:
A bank officer discussing the information with authorised colleagues who require it for their work.


Required by Law
Example:
Disclosure required by legislation.


Required by Regulators or Supervisory Authorities
Example:
Disclosure to Bank Negara Malaysia or other authorised regulators during an investigation.
Outside these situations, disclosure is prohibited.


Banking Example
Case Scenario
A treasury dealer at XYZ Bank Berhad attends an internal meeting.
During the meeting, senior management informs the treasury team that a major sovereign wealth fund will purchase RM5 billion worth of Malaysian Government Securities the following morning.
Management expects the purchase to increase demand and raise the market value of those securities.
The information is strictly confidential.
The transaction has not been announced publicly.
Later that evening, the dealer personally purchases a large quantity of the same government securities through another account.
The next day:

• The sovereign wealth fund completes its purchase.
• Demand increases significantly.
• Prices rise.
• The dealer earns a substantial profit.

An investigation later reveals that the dealer traded solely because of the confidential information obtained during the internal meeting.


Application to the Case Scenario
The dealer possessed information that:

• Was confidential;
• Was not generally available to the market;
• Was price-sensitive; and
• Was likely to affect the value of government securities.

The dealer used that information before it became public.
The dealer therefore gained an unfair advantage over other market participants.
This conduct amounts to insider dealing under section 141(1)(d) FSA 2013 and section 153(1)(e) IFSA 2013.


Solution to the Case Scenario
The treasury dealer traded government securities after receiving confidential information concerning a forthcoming RM5 billion purchase by a sovereign wealth fund.
The information was:

• Non-public;
• Material;
• Price-sensitive; and
• Likely to affect market value.

The dealer used the information to purchase securities before the market became aware of the transaction.
The subsequent profit resulted directly from the confidential information.
Accordingly, the dealer may have committed insider dealing under:

• Section 141(1)(d) Financial Services Act 2013; and
• Section 153(1)(e) Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.

Bank Negara Malaysia may therefore initiate:

• Criminal proceedings;
• Civil enforcement action;
• Administrative penalties;
• Regulatory sanctions; and
• Disciplinary proceedings.

Difference Between Legitimate Trading and Insider Dealing
Legitimate Trading

• Information is publicly available.
• All market participants can access the information.
• No unfair advantage exists.
• Trading decisions are based on public knowledge.
• Market remains fair.

Insider Dealing

• Information is confidential.
• Information is unavailable to other market participants.
• Insider has an unfair advantage.
• Trading occurs before public disclosure.
• Market fairness is undermined.

Why Is Insider Dealing Wrong?
Imagine two traders:
Trader A
Knows a major announcement will happen tomorrow.
Trader B
Knows nothing.
If Trader A trades first and profits from secret information, Trader B never had a fair chance.
The market becomes unfair.
The law therefore seeks to ensure that:
Everyone trades on the same playing field.
No one should profit merely because they possess confidential information unavailable to others.


Critical Analysis
Insider dealing strikes at the heart of market integrity because it destroys confidence in the fairness of financial markets.
Investors and institutions participate in markets on the assumption that prices reflect publicly available information. If insiders are allowed to trade using confidential information, ordinary market participants are placed at a significant disadvantage.
The prohibition under sections 141 FSA 2013 and 153 IFSA 2013 therefore protects:

• Market fairness;
• Investor confidence;
• Price integrity;
• Equal access to information; and
• Financial stability.

The provisions are particularly important in wholesale financial markets, where confidential information relating to government policy, foreign exchange operations, benchmark rates, sovereign transactions, and institutional trades can significantly affect market prices.


Easy Examination Summary
What is insider dealing?
Using confidential information that is not generally available to the market to make a profit, avoid a loss, or obtain an unfair trading advantage.
When does it occur?
When a person:

• Possesses non-public information;
• Knows the information is important;
• Trades based on that information; or
• Gives the information to another person who profits from it.

Why is it prohibited?
Because it gives insiders an unfair advantage and undermines confidence in the financial markets.
Simple Rule to Remember
“If the information is secret and capable of affecting prices, do not trade on it and do not tell others to trade on it.”

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Customers’ Rights, Customers’ Duties, the Macmillan Duty, Greenwood Duty, Estoppel, and Bank Liability for Forged Cheques
Case Scenario
Mega Builders Sdn Bhd maintains a current account with ABC Bank. Over several years, the company’s accounts manager forges numerous company cheques and fraudulently withdraws RM800,000 from the account. The bank honours the cheques and debits the company’s account accordingly.
In addition, one of the company’s directors orally instructs the bank to transfer funds from the company’s account on several occasions. These transactions appear in the company’s bank statements. The directors become aware of these transactions and certain irregularities but do not raise any complaint with the bank for almost eight years.
Eventually, an audit uncovers both the forged cheques and disputed debit transactions. Mega Builders commences legal proceedings against the bank seeking recovery of all monies withdrawn.
The bank argues that the company failed to report the irregularities promptly and should therefore be prevented from challenging the transactions. The bank further contends that the company failed to maintain adequate internal controls to prevent employee fraud.
The dispute raises issues concerning customers’ rights, customers’ duties, forged cheques, estoppel, and the extent of bank liability under Malaysian banking law.


Nature of the Banker-Customer Relationship
The banker-customer relationship is fundamentally contractual in nature.
As explained by Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation, a bank receives money from its customer not as trustee but as borrower. The money deposited becomes the bank’s property, and the bank undertakes to repay an equivalent amount upon demand by the customer.
The bank also undertakes:

• to receive deposits;
• to collect bills and other instruments for the customer;
• to honour valid payment instructions;
• to honour properly drawn cheques where sufficient funds exist; and
• not to terminate the banking relationship without reasonable notice.

Correspondingly, the customer undertakes to exercise reasonable care when issuing written instructions so as not to mislead the bank or facilitate fraud.


Customers’ Rights
1. Right to Repayment
The customer has a contractual right to repayment of funds standing to the credit of the account.
The bank’s obligation is not to return the exact money deposited but to repay an equivalent amount upon a valid demand at the branch where the account is maintained.


2. Right to Draw Cheques
A customer with sufficient funds has the right to issue cheques against the available balance.
The bank owes a corresponding duty to honour properly drawn cheques unless:

• there are insufficient funds;
• the cheque is irregular;
• payment is prohibited by law; or
• the account has been lawfully restricted.

3. Right to Interest
Customers maintaining savings or deposit accounts are generally entitled to interest or returns in accordance with the terms governing the account.
Current accounts ordinarily do not attract interest unless specifically agreed.


Customers’ Duties at Common Law
A significant principle of banking law is that customers owe only limited duties to their bankers.
The Malaysian Supreme Court in United Asian Bank Bhd v Tai Soon Heng Construction Sdn Bhd confirmed that, at common law, customers owe only two recognised duties:

1. The Macmillan Duty.
2. The Greenwood Duty.

No wider duties are imposed unless expressly agreed by contract.


The Macmillan Duty
The first duty originates from London Joint Stock Bank v Macmillan and Arthur.
Under this duty, the customer must exercise reasonable care when drawing cheques and issuing written instructions.
The customer must not prepare a cheque in a manner that facilitates fraud or forgery.
Examples include:

• leaving large blank spaces;
• writing ambiguous amounts;
• signing incomplete cheques; and
• issuing instructions capable of easy alteration.

The purpose of the duty is to prevent the customer from misleading the bank or creating opportunities for fraud.


The Greenwood Duty
The second duty originates from Greenwood v Martins Bank.
Once a customer becomes aware that forged cheques or unauthorised transactions have occurred, the customer must promptly notify the bank.
Failure to provide timely notice may result in the customer being unable to recover losses that could have been prevented had the bank been informed earlier.
The duty arises only after the customer acquires knowledge of the forgery or unauthorised transaction.


No General Duty to Prevent Employee Fraud
The law does not impose a wider obligation on customers to organise their business affairs so as to prevent forgery by employees.
This principle was firmly established by the Privy Council in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd.
In that case, an accounts clerk forged approximately 300 cheques amounting to HK$5.5 million. The Privy Council held that customers owe only the Macmillan Duty and Greenwood Duty.
There is no implied duty requiring customers to:

• establish fraud-proof internal controls;
• supervise employees to prevent forgery;
• conduct audits specifically for the bank’s protection; or
• take general precautions in the management of their business to prevent forged cheques.

The court refused to imply any broader duty into the banker-customer contract.


No General Duty to Inspect Bank Statements
Another important principle established in Tai Hing Cotton Mill and reaffirmed in United Asian Bank is that customers are not under a common law duty to inspect periodic bank statements merely to protect the bank.
Accordingly, absent an express contractual provision:

• customers are not obliged to examine every statement;
• customers are not required to verify every debit entry;
• customers are not responsible for detecting forged signatures through statement review.

The burden of verifying payment instructions remains primarily with the bank.


Duty to Inform the Bank of Known Irregularities and Estoppel
Although there is no general duty to inspect statements, a different principle applies once the customer becomes aware of irregularities.
A customer who discovers an unauthorised transaction, forged cheque, or suspicious debit must notify the bank within a reasonable time.
Failure to do so may give rise to estoppel.
Estoppel prevents a person from asserting a legal claim where his conduct has induced another party to act to its detriment.
In banking law, where a customer remains silent despite knowing of unauthorised transactions, and the bank is prejudiced by the delay, the customer may be estopped from later challenging the transactions.


Proven Development Sdn Bhd v Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Facts
In Proven Development Sdn Bhd v Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, the plaintiff company maintained a current account with the defendant bank.
One of the company’s directors gave oral instructions to the bank to debit the account on three occasions between 1976 and 1977 amounting to RM115,000.
Years later, the company challenged the debits on the basis that they lacked proper authority under the directors’ resolution.
However, the company had failed to raise any complaint concerning the transactions for approximately nine years.


Held
The High Court held that oral instructions given to the bank were capable of subsequent ratification by the directors.
More importantly, the court emphasised that once the company became aware of any alleged irregularity, it was incumbent upon the company to notify the bank promptly.
By waiting nine years before bringing legal proceedings, the company caused substantial prejudice to the bank, which could no longer produce certain documentary evidence because of the passage of time.
Accordingly, the company was estopped from asserting its claim against the bank.


Liability of Banks for Forged Cheques
Under common law, a forged cheque is legally void.
A bank has no authority to honour a forged instrument because the customer’s mandate is absent.
In United Asian Bank Bhd v Tai Soon Heng Construction Sdn Bhd, the Supreme Court held that:

• liability for paying forged cheques arises under the tort of conversion;
• conversion is a tort of strict liability;
• the bank is liable even if it acted honestly;
• the bank is liable even if it exercised reasonable care.

The forged instrument is a nullity, and payment upon it is unauthorised.


New Ace Digital Print Sdn Bhd v Public Bank Bhd
The Malaysian courts have continued to uphold this principle.
In New Ace Digital Print Sdn Bhd v Public Bank Bhd, the bank was held liable in damages for making payment based on a forged cheque.
The case reinforces the principle that the responsibility for verifying signatures and mandates generally rests with the bank.


Critical Analysis
The modern law seeks to balance customer protection with customer responsibility.
On one hand, banks are professional financial institutions entrusted with verifying payment instructions. Since forged cheques are nullities, the law places primary responsibility on banks that honour them.
On the other hand, customers cannot remain passive once they become aware of fraud or irregularities. The Macmillan Duty and Greenwood Duty ensure that customers do not contribute to losses through carelessness or silence.
The doctrine of estoppel further promotes fairness by preventing customers from delaying complaints until evidence has disappeared or the bank’s ability to defend itself has been prejudiced.
The combined effect of Macmillan, Greenwood, Tai Hing Cotton Mill, United Asian Bank, and Proven Development creates a balanced framework that protects both parties while preserving confidence in the banking system.


Solution to the Case Scenario
Forged Cheques
Mega Builders would likely succeed in recovering losses arising from the forged cheques.
The forged instruments are legally void, and the bank had no authority to honour them.
The bank remains primarily liable under the tort of conversion.


Employee Fraud
The bank cannot avoid liability merely by arguing that the company failed to maintain adequate internal controls.
Following Tai Hing Cotton Mill and United Asian Bank, customers owe no general duty to organise their business affairs to prevent employee fraud.


Delayed Complaint Regarding Debit Transactions
The position differs regarding the disputed debit transactions.
The directors became aware of the transactions but waited several years before raising any complaint.
Applying Proven Development, the company’s delay may create an estoppel if the bank has suffered prejudice because relevant records or evidence are no longer available.
The company may therefore be prevented from challenging those transactions.


Practical Application
For Customers
Customers should:

• draw cheques carefully and clearly;
• immediately report forged signatures;
• notify the bank promptly upon discovering irregular transactions;
• maintain reasonable internal controls;
• retain banking records and supporting documents.

Although there is generally no duty to inspect statements, regular review remains prudent commercial practice.


For Banks
Banks should:

• verify signatures rigorously;
• maintain effective fraud detection systems;
• retain transaction records for appropriate periods;
• investigate reported irregularities promptly;
• recognise that payment on forged instruments generally attracts strict liability.

Conclusion
Under Malaysian banking law, customers possess the rights to repayment, cheque facilities, and interest where contractually provided. In return, customers owe only two recognised common law duties: the Macmillan Duty, requiring reasonable care when drawing cheques, and the Greenwood Duty, requiring prompt notification of known forgeries or unauthorised transactions. Neither Malaysian nor English law imposes a general duty upon customers to supervise employees, prevent internal fraud, or routinely inspect bank statements for the bank’s benefit. Nevertheless, once a customer becomes aware of an irregularity, he must inform the bank within a reasonable time. Failure to do so may give rise to estoppel, preventing the customer from later challenging the transaction if the delay prejudices the bank. Accordingly, while banks generally bear strict liability for paying forged cheques, customers who knowingly remain silent about irregularities may lose their right to recover losses arising from those transactions.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Garnishee Order
Definition
A garnishee order is a court order that enables a judgment creditor (a person who has obtained a judgment against a debtor) to recover the judgment debt by attaching money owed to the judgment debtor by a third party, known as the garnishee.
In banking law, the garnishee is usually a bank because the bank owes a debt to its customer in respect of the customer’s account balance.
A garnishee order therefore allows the court to direct the bank to pay money standing to the credit of the customer’s account directly to the judgment creditor instead of the customer.


Parties to a Garnishee Proceeding
1. Judgment Creditor
The party who has successfully obtained a court judgment and is entitled to receive payment.
2. Judgment Debtor
The party against whom the judgment has been entered and who owes the judgment debt.
3. Garnishee
A third party who owes money to the judgment debtor.
In banking cases, the garnishee is generally the bank that maintains the debtor’s account.


Legal Basis of a Garnishee Order
The operation of a garnishee order is founded upon the debtor-creditor relationship between a bank and its customer.
When money is deposited into a bank account:

• Ownership of the money passes to the bank.
• The bank becomes the debtor.
• The customer becomes the creditor.
• The customer acquires a contractual right to demand repayment from the bank.

Therefore, the customer’s bank balance represents a debt owed by the bank to the customer.
A garnishee order attaches that debt and redirects payment from the bank to the judgment creditor.


Procedure
Stage 1: Judgment Obtained
A creditor first obtains a court judgment against a debtor.
Example:

• Ali sues Ahmad.
• The court orders Ahmad to pay Ali RM100,000.
• Ahmad fails to satisfy the judgment.

Stage 2: Garnishee Order Nisi
Ali applies to the court for a garnishee order against Ahmad’s bank.
The court may issue a Garnishee Order Nisi, which:

• Temporarily freezes funds in Ahmad’s account up to the amount of the judgment debt.
• Requires the bank to appear before the court.
• Requires the bank to disclose whether it holds money belonging to Ahmad.

At this stage, the order is provisional and has not yet become final.


Stage 3: Garnishee Order Absolute
If the court is satisfied that the bank holds funds belonging to Ahmad, it may issue a Garnishee Order Absolute.
The bank is then legally required to:

• Pay the specified amount directly to Ali.
• Comply with the court order.
• Treat the payment as a valid discharge of its debt to Ahmad.

Practical Illustration
Assume:

• Ahmad owes Ali RM50,000 pursuant to a court judgment.
• Ahmad maintains a savings account with Maybank containing RM80,000.

The court issues:

1. A Garnishee Order Nisi.
2. Subsequently, a Garnishee Order Absolute.

The bank must pay RM50,000 directly to Ali.
Result:

• Ali receives RM50,000.
• RM30,000 remains in Ahmad’s account.

Effect on the Banker-Customer Relationship
1. Restriction on Customer’s Right to Withdraw
Once served with a garnishee order, the bank must preserve the attached funds and cannot permit the customer to withdraw them.


2. Duty to Honour Cheques Suspended
A bank is normally under a contractual duty to honour the customer’s valid payment instructions.
However, where a garnishee order has attached the funds, the bank must refuse payment of cheques or withdrawal instructions that would affect those funds.


3. Exception to Banking Secrecy
Although a bank generally owes a duty of confidentiality to its customer, disclosure of account information pursuant to garnishee proceedings is legally justified because it is made under compulsion of law and pursuant to a court order.


4. Mandatory Compliance
The bank has no discretion whether to comply.
Failure to obey a garnishee order may expose the bank to liability for contempt of court and other legal consequences.


Accounts and Funds That May Be Attached
Generally attachable:
✅ Current account balances
✅ Savings account balances
✅ Fixed deposits that have become payable
✅ Debts due from the bank to the customer
Potentially not attachable or subject to limitations:
❌ Accounts with no credit balance
❌ Trust accounts where the debtor has no beneficial ownership
❌ Certain joint accounts, depending on ownership and applicable legal principles
❌ Funds that do not legally belong to the judgment debtor


Relationship with the Debtor-Creditor Principle
The rationale behind garnishee proceedings can be understood through the debtor-creditor relationship established in the landmark case of Foley v Hill.
The House of Lords held that:

• A bank does not hold deposited money as trustee for the customer.
• The bank becomes debtor of the customer.
• The customer’s right is merely a debt claim against the bank.

Because the customer’s account balance is legally a debt owed by the bank, the court may attach that debt and require the bank to pay it to the judgment creditor.


Critical Analysis
A garnishee order is one of the most effective judgment enforcement mechanisms in banking law because it allows a creditor to access money already held by a bank without having to seize physical assets from the debtor.
From the creditor’s perspective, garnishee proceedings provide a swift and practical means of recovering judgment debts. From the bank’s perspective, however, the order temporarily overrides certain contractual obligations owed to the customer, including the duty to honour payment instructions and maintain confidentiality.
The effectiveness of the remedy ultimately rests on the fundamental principle that a customer’s deposit is not trust property but a debt owed by the bank. Consequently, the court is able to intercept that debt and redirect payment to satisfy the judgment creditor’s claim.


Examination Summary
Garnishee Order = Court order attaching a debt owed by a third party to a judgment debtor.
In banking law:

• Bank = Garnishee.
• Customer = Judgment Debtor.
• Creditor = Judgment Creditor.
• Customer’s account balance = Debt owed by the bank to the customer.
• Court redirects payment of that debt from the bank to the judgment creditor.

Key Principle: A garnishee order operates because the banker-customer relationship is fundamentally one of debtor and creditor, as established in Foley v Hill.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Banking Secrecy, Confidentiality and Disclosure
Introduction
Banking secrecy is a fundamental aspect of the banker-customer relationship. It protects confidential information obtained by a bank concerning a customer’s affairs and accounts. The duty exists to safeguard customer privacy, preserve confidence in the banking system and ensure that banking information is disclosed only in circumstances recognised by law.
In Malaysia, banking secrecy is governed principally by sections 132, 133 and 134 of the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013), which replaced the secrecy provisions formerly found in the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 (BAFIA).
The duty of confidentiality is protected through:

• Statute;
• Contract; and
• Equity.

Consequently, unauthorised disclosure may result in:

• Criminal liability;
• Civil liability;
• Equitable remedies; and
• Regulatory sanctions.

However, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that banking secrecy is not absolute. The law must balance customer privacy against the requirements of justice, commercial practicality, regulatory supervision and public interest.


1. Statutory Duty of Secrecy
Section 133 FSA 2013
Section 133 imposes a duty of secrecy upon:

• Financial institutions;
• Directors;
• Officers;
• Employees;
• Agents; and
• Former directors, officers and agents.

The duty prohibits disclosure of information relating to a customer’s affairs or account.
The protection extends to:

• Account balances;
• Transaction histories;
• Financing facilities;
• Securities holdings;
• Credit information;
• Customer identities; and
• Any information acquired through the banking relationship.

Breach may attract:

• Imprisonment up to five years;
• A fine up to RM10 million; or
• Both.

2. Banking Confidentiality under Contract and Equity
Apart from statute, confidentiality is also recognised as:
An Implied Contractual Duty
The banker-customer contract contains an implied term that customer information will remain confidential.
An Equitable Obligation
Equity protects confidential information and may grant remedies such as injunctions and damages for misuse of confidential information.
The Malaysian courts have developed these principles through a number of important cases.


Tan Eng Seong v Malayan Banking Bhd
Principle
Disclosure of customer information to the customer’s brother constituted a breach of the implied contractual duty of confidentiality.
The case confirms that:

• Confidentiality is an implied contractual term.
• Family members remain third parties unless authorised.
• Nominal damages may be awarded even where actual loss is minimal.

Wong Yeng Mun v CIMB Bank Berhad
Principle
The bank negligently sent account statements to the wrong address where they were opened by the customer’s wife.
The court held that:

• The privilege of confidentiality belongs to the customer.
• Administrative negligence may amount to a breach of confidentiality.
• Banks must maintain adequate safeguards to protect customer information.

Tan Lay Soon v Kam Mah Theatre Sdn Bhd
Principle
The court held that confidentiality belongs to the customer and may be waived either expressly or impliedly.
Where disclosure is necessary to complete a transaction authorised by the customer, banking secrecy will not prevent such disclosure.


3. Cross-Border Disclosure and Extra-Territorial Effect
Attorney General of Hong Kong v Zauyah Wan Chik & Ors
The Court of Appeal held that section 97 BAFIA was not expressed to have extra-territorial effect.
Accordingly:

• Disclosure in foreign court proceedings does not automatically create criminal liability in Malaysia.
• Witnesses compelled by foreign courts may rely on legal compulsion as a defence.
• Banking secrecy must sometimes yield to the administration of justice.

4. Illegally Obtained Banking Information Remains Admissible
Wako Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd v Lim Lean Heng
The defendants argued that banking information obtained in breach of section 97 BAFIA should be inadmissible in support of a Mareva injunction.
The High Court rejected this argument.
Legal Principle
Parliament created criminal offences for unlawful disclosure of banking information but did not provide that such information would become inadmissible in court proceedings.
Accordingly:

• Illegally obtained evidence remains admissible if relevant.
• Criminal liability and evidential admissibility are separate issues.
• The person disclosing the information may face criminal consequences, but the evidence itself may still be used in court.

The Court of Appeal subsequently affirmed that breach of confidentiality is ordinarily remedied through injunctions or damages rather than by excluding evidence.


5. Public Information and Banking Confidentiality
An important limitation on banking secrecy concerns information that is already publicly available.
Confidentiality cannot ordinarily be claimed over facts that have entered the public domain through lawful publication.
This principle was considered in the following case.


Hj Salleh Hj Janan v Financial Information Services Sdn Bhd; Affin-ACF Finance Bhd (Third Party) [2005] 1 CLJ 241
Facts
Financial Information Services Sdn Bhd (FIS) supplied information to Affin-ACF Finance Bhd indicating that the plaintiff had twice been adjudged bankrupt.
The information originated from court records and bankruptcy orders that had previously been published in newspapers and the Government Gazette.
However, FIS failed to mention that the bankruptcy orders had subsequently been rescinded and annulled.
The plaintiff sued FIS for libel, arguing that publication of the information damaged his reputation.


Held
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
The court held that FIS merely reproduced information contained in public court records and publicly available publications.
Since the information related to facts already available to the public, FIS was entitled to repeat or restate those facts.
The defence of justification therefore succeeded.


Judgment of Linton Albert JC
The court adopted the principle that:
A statement that a decree or order has been made by a public court is a public fact which anybody is entitled to state.
The court emphasised that information already appearing in court records, newspapers or the Gazette loses its confidential character because it has entered the public domain.


Legal Principle
The case establishes that:
Public Facts Are Not Confidential
Information contained in public court records is no longer confidential.
A person who merely repeats or republishes such information is generally not liable for disclosing confidential information.
Repetition of Public Information Is Not a Breach of Banking Secrecy
Banking secrecy protects confidential information.
It does not protect information that has already become publicly available through lawful means.
Defence of Justification
Where a statement accurately reflects a public court record, the defence of justification may defeat a defamation claim.


Significance
This case demonstrates an important limitation on banking confidentiality.
While banking secrecy protects private customer information, it cannot be used to conceal information that has already become part of the public record through judicial proceedings.
The law protects secrecy, not secrecy that has already ceased to exist.


Case Scenario: Public Bankruptcy Record
Facts
A finance company receives information from a credit reporting agency indicating that Ahmad was adjudged bankrupt five years ago.
The information was obtained from court records published in the Gazette.
Ahmad sues, alleging breach of confidentiality and defamation.


Solution
Applying Hj Salleh Hj Janan:

• The information originated from public court records.
• The information was already publicly available.
• The agency merely repeated a public fact.
• Confidentiality cannot attach to information already in the public domain.

Accordingly, the claim is unlikely to succeed.


Critical Analysis
The decision strikes a balance between:
Privacy Rights
Individuals deserve protection against unauthorised disclosure of genuinely confidential information.
Public Interest
Court orders, bankruptcy proceedings and other judicial records are matters of public record.
Allowing persons to claim confidentiality over publicly available information would undermine legal certainty and commercial decision-making.
The court therefore distinguished between:

• Confidential banking information; and
• Publicly available legal facts.

6. Banker’s Duty Regarding Garnishee Orders
A bank may receive a garnishee order from a customer’s creditor.
Once served with the order, the bank owes a duty to the court not to release the attached funds unless authorised by the court.
The bank must preserve the funds pending further directions.
Failure to comply may expose the bank to liability.


Bank Utama (M) Bhd v Insan Budi Sdn Bhd
Principle
The Court of Appeal recognised that banks may owe duties not only under contract but also in tort.
Where a bank acting in its professional capacity fails to follow proper procedures in handling a credit facility, the bank may incur concurrent liability in:

• Contract; and
• Negligence.

Significance
The case demonstrates that a bank’s responsibilities extend beyond merely keeping customer information confidential.
Banks are professional financial institutions expected to exercise reasonable skill, care and competence when performing banking functions.
A failure to do so may result in liability under multiple legal principles.


Key Examination Principles
Banking Secrecy

• Governed principally by sections 132–134 FSA 2013.
• Protects information relating to customer affairs and accounts.

Tan Eng Seong Principle

• Confidentiality is an implied contractual duty.
• Disclosure to relatives may constitute breach.

Wong Yeng Mun Principle

• Confidentiality belongs to the customer.
• Negligent disclosure may create liability.

Tan Lay Soon Principle

• Confidentiality belongs to the customer.
• Consent may be express or implied.

Zauyah Wan Chik Principle

• Banking secrecy laws are not automatically extra-territorial.
• Disclosure under legal compulsion may be justified.

Wako Merchant Bank Principle

• Information obtained in breach of banking secrecy laws remains admissible if relevant.
• Criminal liability and admissibility are separate issues.

Hj Salleh Hj Janan Principle

• Publicly available court records are not confidential.
• A public fact may be repeated or restated.
• Banking secrecy does not protect information already in the public domain.

Bank Utama Principle

• Banks may owe concurrent duties in contract and tort.
• Failure to exercise proper professional care may create liability.

Conclusion
Malaysian banking secrecy law protects customer information through statutory provisions, contractual obligations and equitable principles. However, confidentiality is not absolute. The courts have recognised several important limitations, including customer consent, legal compulsion, public court records, admissibility of relevant evidence, and the practical requirements of commerce and justice. Cases such as Tan Eng Seong, Wong Yeng Mun, Tan Lay Soon, Zauyah Wan Chik, Wako Merchant Bank, and Hj Salleh Hj Janan collectively demonstrate that while customer privacy remains a fundamental concern, banking secrecy must be balanced against broader legal, commercial and public interests.

​

Malaysian Banking Law – Mareva Injunction
Definition
A Mareva Injunction (now commonly referred to as a Freezing Order) is a court order that restrains a defendant from disposing of, transferring, dissipating, or dealing with assets pending the determination of legal proceedings.
The purpose of a Mareva Injunction is not to give the plaintiff security over the assets, but to preserve the assets so that they remain available to satisfy a future judgment.
In banking law, a Mareva Injunction frequently affects bank accounts because money held in accounts can be quickly transferred or withdrawn before a judgment is obtained.


Purpose of a Mareva Injunction
The primary purpose is to prevent a defendant from frustrating the enforcement of a future judgment by:

• Removing assets from the jurisdiction;
• Transferring assets to third parties;
• Concealing assets;
• Dissipating funds held in bank accounts; or
• Reducing the value of assets available to satisfy a judgment.

A Mareva Injunction therefore preserves the status quo until the dispute is resolved.


Nature of the Remedy
A Mareva Injunction is:

• An equitable remedy;
• Discretionary in nature;
• Usually granted before trial;
• Frequently obtained on an ex parte basis (without notifying the defendant);
• Intended to preserve assets rather than determine ownership.

The injunction does not transfer ownership of assets to the plaintiff.
The defendant remains the legal owner of the assets but loses the freedom to deal with them in a manner prohibited by the court order.


Historical Origin
The remedy derives its name from the English case of:
Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA
where the English Court of Appeal recognised the court’s power to freeze a defendant’s assets pending trial.
The decision revolutionised commercial litigation by providing a practical mechanism to prevent defendants from defeating judgments through asset dissipation.


Requirements for Obtaining a Mareva Injunction
A plaintiff generally must establish:
1. A Good Arguable Case
The plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success.
The court does not determine the merits conclusively at this stage.


2. Assets Within the Jurisdiction
The defendant must possess assets capable of being frozen.
These assets may include:

• Bank accounts;
• Shares;
• Real property;
• Investments;
• Business assets.

3. Real Risk of Dissipation
The plaintiff must show a genuine risk that the defendant may:

• Remove assets;
• Conceal assets;
• Transfer funds;
• Dispose of property;
• Otherwise frustrate enforcement of a future judgment.

Mere suspicion is insufficient.
The court requires evidence demonstrating a real risk.


4. Full and Frank Disclosure
Because many Mareva applications are made ex parte, the applicant must disclose all material facts to the court, including facts that may be unfavourable to its case.
Failure to do so may result in the injunction being discharged.


Effect on Bank Accounts
A Mareva Injunction frequently operates against bank accounts.
For example:

• A sues B for RM5 million.
• A discovers that B maintains RM3 million in several bank accounts.
• A fears that B will transfer the money overseas.

The court grants a Mareva Injunction freezing the accounts.
Consequently:

• B remains the owner of the money.
• The accounts continue to exist.
• The bank cannot permit withdrawals or transfers contrary to the injunction.
• The funds remain preserved pending the outcome of the case.

Example
Facts
Ali sues Ahmad for RM2 million alleging fraud.
Ali discovers that Ahmad holds RM1.5 million in accounts with Maybank and CIMB Bank.
Evidence suggests Ahmad intends to transfer the funds to an overseas jurisdiction.


Court Order
The court grants a Mareva Injunction prohibiting Ahmad from:

• Withdrawing funds;
• Transferring money abroad;
• Dealing with specified assets.

The banks are notified of the order.


Result
The banks freeze the accounts to the extent specified by the order.
The funds remain available if Ali ultimately succeeds in the lawsuit.


Duties of the Bank Upon Receiving a Mareva Injunction
1. Duty to Comply with the Court Order
The bank must immediately comply with the injunction.
Failure may expose the bank to contempt proceedings.


2. Restriction on Transactions
The bank must not permit withdrawals or transfers inconsistent with the injunction.


3. Disclosure Obligations
The court may require the bank to disclose information regarding the defendant’s accounts and assets.
Such disclosure is legally justified notwithstanding banking confidentiality obligations.


4. Preservation of Assets
The bank must take reasonable steps to ensure that frozen assets remain intact pending further court directions.


Mareva Injunction vs Garnishee Order
Feature
Mareva Injunction
Garnishee Order

Purpose
Preserve assets
Enforce a judgment

Timing
Before or during proceedings
After judgment

Ownership of assets
Remains with defendant
Debt is paid to judgment creditor

Transfer of money
No transfer occurs
Money is transferred

Objective
Prevent dissipation
Recover judgment debt

Nature
Protective remedy
Enforcement remedy


Relationship with Banking Secrecy
A Mareva Injunction often requires disclosure of information concerning bank accounts.
This constitutes an exception to the bank’s duty of confidentiality because disclosure occurs pursuant to a court order and is therefore authorised by law.
The bank does not breach its duty of secrecy when complying with the injunction.


Case Illustration: Discovery of Bank Accounts
Wako Merchant Bank (Singapore) Ltd v Lim Lean Heng
Facts
The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant and subsequently secured an ex parte Mareva Injunction.
Information concerning several bank accounts affected by the injunction was obtained by a private investigator.
The defendants argued that the information had been obtained in breach of statutory banking secrecy provisions and should therefore be inadmissible.


Held
The court refused to discharge the injunction.
The information remained admissible notwithstanding the alleged breach of banking secrecy provisions.
The accounts therefore continued to be subject to the Mareva Injunction.


Significance
The case demonstrates that courts may prioritise the administration of justice and asset preservation over objections concerning the manner in which account information was obtained.
It also illustrates the close relationship between banking secrecy issues and Mareva proceedings.


Critical Analysis
A Mareva Injunction is one of the most powerful interim remedies in commercial and banking litigation. Without such relief, a dishonest defendant could transfer funds out of bank accounts and render a future judgment worthless.
The remedy balances competing interests. On one hand, it protects plaintiffs from asset dissipation. On the other hand, because it can significantly restrict a defendant’s use of property before liability has been established, courts impose strict requirements such as a good arguable case, evidence of dissipation risk, and full and frank disclosure.
For banks, a Mareva Injunction creates legal obligations that override ordinary contractual duties owed to customers. Although the bank normally follows customer instructions, once a freezing order is served the bank’s paramount duty is compliance with the court order.


Examination Summary
Mareva Injunction (Freezing Order)

• An equitable court order freezing a defendant’s assets.
• Designed to prevent dissipation of assets before judgment.
• Commonly affects bank accounts.
• Does not transfer ownership of assets.
• Defendant remains owner but cannot freely deal with the assets.
• Requires:
  • Good arguable case;
  • Assets available for freezing;
  • Real risk of dissipation;
  • Full and frank disclosure.
• Banks must comply once notified.
• Distinct from a garnishee order because it preserves assets rather than enforcing a judgment.

Key Principle: A Mareva Injunction is a protective remedy aimed at ensuring that assets, including bank deposits, remain available to satisfy any judgment that may ultimately be obtained by the plaintiff.

​