Reflections on Fraud and Accountability in Sabah

 

 Tatal ke bawah untuk terjemahan dalam bahasa Melayu.

Yesterday, I read a report in the Straits Times that resonated deeply with me. Below are the extracts from the report alongside my reflections.

Extract:

Court finds Selangor land office negligent, orders RM1.1mil award for land fraud victim.

Judicial Commissioner Indra Nehru Savandiah ruled in favour of Ng Kin Song @ Ng Thian Song, finding that negligence and statutory breaches by the Selangor Land and Mines Department and the Klang Land Office had enabled the fraudulent transaction.  

My thoughts:

Could the Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan & Bandar Sabah (LPPB) have been negligent, or were they complicit in the scheme at Vistana Heights? This question looms large, as since 2022, the General Manager of LPPB has consistently declined to meet with me despite multiple requests. My emails and phone calls have gone unanswered.

Was the architect negligent in preparing the development plan approved by Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK) in 2011? In his letter to Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia (LAM) dated September 30, 2022, he stated:

The platform levels of each house and access road finished level were indicated in the Development Plan and was approved by Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK). As shown in the as-built survey plan by the Licenced Surveyor, the levels were constructed accordingly.

Yet, in another letter to LAM dated March 6, 2023, he wrote:

Also, this purchaser executed the Sales and Purchase Agreement on 13th January 2014, the said house was already over 75% completed, where the building platform and the access road formation for the said house had already been completed.

Contrary to these claims, the platform levels and road heights on-site do not match the development plan prepared by the architect and approved by DBKK in 2011, which was attached to the Sales and Purchase Agreement. Was this a negligent oversight or a deliberate act to deceive buyers? The platform and road levels on-site differ from those in the approved plan. By 2014, when the agreement was signed, the platform levels were already constructed and did not align with the approved development plan.

It is incorrect to say that the access road formation had already been completed as payment of 15% for the road was only claimed by the developer in December 2016.

 

Extract:

The actual Yeoh only discovered the fraud when he visited the Klang Land Office on Aug 30, 2018. 

My thoughts:

When did I uncover the fraud? In 2020, I noticed the driveway was excessively steep, but as it was my first encounter with the property, I had no way of knowing it deviated from the development plan. Starting in 2022, I requested the Development Plan (DP) from the developer, DBKK, the architect, and LPPB, but was only provided with the original DP from 1995. Despite numerous emails to DBKK and LPPB requesting the DP attached to the Sales and Purchase Agreement, I only received it in May 2025. This revealed clear evidence of fraud. The architect had submitted a fraudulent DP to DBKK in February 2007, which was approved in 2011 by a newly appointed mayor. This points to fraud by the architect, with apparent collusion by DBKK.

Extract:

The defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations, arguing that their role was purely administrative and that there was no evidence to show they had acted in bad faith.

They further contended that it would be unfair to hold them liable for negligence over the fraudulent transaction involving the 13th defendant's land, as they were not directly involved in any fraudulent conduct.

The court, however, disagreed with the defendants on the grounds that the state authorities failed in their legal and procedural duties…

"It is an undisputed fact that the land office failed to follow its standard operating procedure. 

My thoughts:

Let us leave the court to determine whether DBKK’s role was merely administrative or if they were complicit in the fraud. Were they negligent, or did they actively participate? I hope the court considers the two meetings held with DBKK’s Director General on May 5 and June 11, 2025, to assess whether DBKK failed in its legal and procedural obligations.

Extract:

The court further took issue with the land office's refusal to disclose the identities of staff members who had processed the fraudulent transaction.

"It is important to note that the Klang Land Office's refusal to disclose their personnel's names to the plaintiff constitutes bad faith conduct."

"The simple failure to follow the statutory requirements under the National Land Code 1965 to keep accurate records constitutes a breach of the common law duty of care,"… 

My thoughts:

Will the court view DBKK’s failure to provide me with the DP attached to Faisal’s Sales and Purchase Agreement as problematic? Will it address the lack of response from LPPB and DBKK to my emails? I hope these issues are considered in determining accountability.

………..Malay translation

Pada 17 Julai 2025, saya membaca laporan di Straits Times yang sangat menggembirakan saya. Berikut adalah petikan daripada laporan tersebut bersama-sama dengan refleksi saya.

Petikan:

Mahkamah mendapati pejabat tanah Selangor cuai, memerintahkan pampasan RM1.1 juta untuk mangsa penipuan tanah.

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Indra Nehru Savandiah memutuskan memihak kepada Ng Kin Song @ Ng Thian Song, mendapati bahawa kecuaian dan pelanggaran statutori oleh Jabatan Tanah dan Galian Selangor serta Pejabat Tanah Klang telah membolehkan transaksi penipuan tersebut. 

Fikiran saya:

Adakah Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan & Bandar Sabah, (LPPB) cuai atau terlibat dalam skim tersebut? Soalan ini relevan kerana sejak 2022, Pengurus Besar LPPB enggan bertemu dengan saya walaupun berulang kali diminta. Semua e-mel dan panggilan telefon saya tidak dijawab.

Adakah arkitek cuai dalam menyediakan pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK) pada 2011? Dalam suratnya kepada Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia (LAM) bertarikh 30 September 2022, beliau menyatakan:

Aras platform setiap rumah dan aras jalan masuk yang telah siap ditunjukkan dalam Pelan Pembangunan dan telah diluluskan oleh Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK). Seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam pelan tinjauan as-built oleh Juruukur Berlesen, aras tersebut dibina sewajarnya.

Namun, dalam surat lain kepada LAM bertarikh 6 Mac 2023, beliau berkata:

Juga, pembeli ini menandatangani Perjanjian Jual Beli pada 13 Januari 2014, rumah tersebut sudah lebih 75% siap, di mana platform bangunan dan pembentukan jalan masuk untuk rumah tersebut telah pun siap.

Aras platform dan ketinggian jalan di tapak tidak sepadan dengan pelan pembangunan yang disediakan oleh arkitek dan diluluskan oleh DBKK pada 2011, yang dilampirkan pada Perjanjian Jual Beli. Adakah ini tindakan cuai atau dilakukan secara penipuan untuk mengelirukan pembeli? Aras platform dan ketinggian jalan di tapak tidak sama dengan yang diluluskan dalam pelan. Menjelang 2014, apabila perjanjian ditandatangani, aras platform telah pun dibentuk dan tidak sepadan dengan pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan.

Petikan:

Yeoh yang sebenar hanya menemui penipuan tersebut apabila beliau melawat Pejabat Tanah Klang pada 30 Ogos 2018. 

 

Fikiran saya:

Bilakah saya menemui penipuan tersebut? Pada 2020, saya perasan bahawa laluan masuk terlalu curam, tetapi memandangkan itu adalah kali pertama saya melihat rumah tersebut, saya tidak tahu ia tidak konsisten dengan pelan pembangunan. Bermula pada 2022, saya meminta Pelan Pembangunan (DP) daripada DBKK, arkitek, dan LPPB, tetapi hanya diberikan DP asal bertarikh 1995. Walaupun menghantar pelbagai e-mel kepada DBKK dan LPPB untuk meminta DP yang dilampirkan pada Perjanjian Jual Beli, saya hanya mendapatnya pada Mei 2025. Ini menunjukkan bukti jelas penipuan. Arkitek telah mengemukakan DP penipuan pada Februari 2007, tetapi hanya diluluskan pada 2011 apabila Datuk Bandar baru dilantik. Ini jelas menunjukkan penipuan oleh arkitek, dengan kemungkinan kolusi daripada DBKK.

Petikan:

Defendan menafikan tuduhan plaintif, dengan hujah bahawa peranan mereka hanya bersifat pentadbiran dan tiada bukti menunjukkan mereka bertindak dengan niat jahat.

Mereka selanjutnya berhujah bahawa tidak adil untuk mempertanggungjawabkan mereka atas kecuaian ke atas transaksi penipuan yang melibatkan tanah defendan ke-13, kerana mereka tidak terlibat secara langsung dalam sebarang tindakan penipuan.

Mahkamah, bagaimanapun, tidak bersetuju dengan defendan atas alasan bahawa pihak berkuasa negeri gagal dalam tugas undang-undang dan prosedur mereka…

Adalah fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan bahawa pejabat tanah gagal mengikuti prosedur operasi standardnya. 

Fikiran saya:

Mahkamah akan menentukan sama ada peranan DBKK hanya pentadbiran atau mereka terlibat dalam penipuan. Adakah mereka cuai atau sebahagian daripada penipuan? Saya berharap mahkamah akan mempertimbangkan dua mesyuarat yang diadakan dengan Ketua Pengarah DBKK pada 5 Mei dan 11 Jun 2025, untuk menilai sama ada DBKK gagal dalam tanggungjawab undang-undang dan prosedurnya.

Petikan:

Mahkamah juga mempersoalkan kegagalan pejabat tanah untuk mendedahkan identiti kakitangan yang memproses transaksi penipuan tersebut.

Adalah penting untuk diperhatikan bahawa penolakan Pejabat Tanah Klang untuk mendedahkan nama kakitangan mereka kepada plaintif merupakan tindakan berniat jahat.

Kegagalan mudah untuk mematuhi keperluan statutori di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 untuk menyimpan rekod yang tepat merupakan pelanggaran tugas jagaan di bawah undang-undang biasa,… 

Fikiran saya:

Adakah mahkamah akan mempersoalkan kegagalan DBKK untuk memberikan saya salinan DP yang dilampirkan pada Perjanjian Jual Beli Faisal? Adakah mahkamah akan mempersoalkan ketidakresponsifan LPPB dan DBKK terhadap e-mel saya? Saya berharap isu-isu ini dipertimbangkan dalam menentukan akauntabiliti.