When Documents Contradict Reality: Why Won’t PDRM Investigate?

 

I have lodged multiple police reports concerning the alleged fabrication of false evidence and misrepresentation in property transactions. These reports include clear documentary contradictions: deceased persons listed as vendors, Sale & Purchase Agreements that don’t match filed particulars, and discrepancies in ownership records.

 

Background

1.     I lodged Police Reports LUYANG/004016/25 (24 September 2025, Balai Polis Karamunsing) and LUYANG/005118/25 (27 November 2025, Balai Polis Tanjung Aru).

 

2.     Both reports concern alleged fabrication of false evidence and misrepresentation involving Ir. Heng Kok Keong of Zaidun Leeng Sdn. Bhd. and documents filed by Mr. Ronny Cham.

 

3.     In the first report, PDRM redirected the matter to KPKT (West Malaysia) on the grounds that it was not a police case. KPKT, however, has no jurisdiction in Sabah over criminal matters.

 

4.     My third report was referred to KKTP (Sabah), despite its position as one of the seven defendants, raising serious concerns of conflict of interest.

 

Evidence of Contradictions:

In the ‘PARTICULARS OF SUBSALE TRANSACTIONS’ filed in the counter claim by engineer Heng Kok Keong of Zaidun Leeng & Co together with 3 others it stated:

5.     Unit S7 is recorded as purchased/sold by Lee Choon Ken @ Robert Lee on 19 April 2022. JPN has confirmed that Lee Choon Ken is deceased. The Sale & Purchase Agreement of xxx (name withheld) dated 23 May 2022 states Robert Lee as deceased.

Tai Fung Ming has stated in her Affidavit dated 6 July 2021 that her husband died on 18 February 2015.

 

6.     Unit S3 is recorded as purchased/sold on 23 May 2022 by Tai Fui Ming for RM1,380,000. The actual Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 23 May 2022 names XXX and YYY (names withheld) as purchasers and the price of purchase is RM1,650,000.

 

7.     Unit S10 is said to be purchased by Loi Thien How & Phyllis Lee Pei Yee on 6 February 2020. In fact, Chong Chooi Theng purchased the same unit in 2013 for RM1,300,000 and sold it in or around 2024. The purchase by Chong Chooi Theng in 2013 is stated by Tai Fui Ming in her affidavit dated 6 July 2021. 

 

8.     Unit S11 is recorded as purchased by Chong Chooi Theng in 2020. She confirmed directly to me that she purchased S10 in 2013.

 

9.     Unit S19 is stated in the Particulars of Subsale as purchased by Annie Cheng Hwa Ping on 11.10.2021 when in fact it was bought by Yap Sin Kian and Annie Cheng Hwa Ping in 2012. This is confirmed in a letter written by Yap Sin Kian and Annie Cheng Hwa Ping that was filed in court by DBKK.

 

10.These contradictions are black‑and‑white discrepancies in filed documents, not speculative allegations.

 

Questions Arising

11.Why is this report not sufficient for PDRM to investigate and inform the court, given Penal Code provisions (Ss. 191–193, 417, 420)?

 

12.Why does the court have to instruct PDRM, as suggested by the Crime Division officer, when police are already empowered to investigate?

 

13.Why did PDRM redirect my first report to KPKT, which has no jurisdiction in Sabah, and my third report to KKTP, a defendant with clear conflict of interest?

 

14.Why are complainants expected to prove the date of death when JPN confirmation already establishes the fact of death? Shouldn’t verifying timelines be the police’s investigative duty?

 

15.Why are contradictions in Sale & Purchase Agreements and pleadings not treated as prima facie evidence of fraud?

 

16.Why has no Investigating Officer been appointed despite repeated requests and clear documentary evidence?

 

17.Did the four defendants actually instruct the lawyer? This question is critical because the same lawyer claimed to act for LPPB in 2022, but LPPB’s Head of Legal confirmed he was not on their panel of lawyers and was unaware of such an appointment. If no proper instructions were given, then the filings themselves may constitute misrepresentation.

 

Relief Sought

18.That both police reports be immediately re‑opened and investigated as criminal matters.

 

19.That a dedicated Investigating Officer be appointed, with his/her name and contact details provided to me.

 

20.That all attached new evidence be formally recorded and examined.

 

21.That statements be taken from relevant parties, including Ir. Heng Kok Keong and Mr. Ronny Cham.

 

 

22.That statements also be taken from the other three defendants who

purportedly instructed Mr. Ronny Cham of Messrs. Ronny Cham & Co., namely:

i. Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

ii. Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan dan Bandar

iii. Arkitek LYS Sdn. Bhd.

 

23.That I be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.

 

The Bigger Picture

This is not about one lawyer or one engineer. It is about whether ordinary citizens can rely on the police to investigate clear documentary contradictions. If fabricated documents filed in court are not automatically escalated as criminal matters, then what hope is there for justice?

 

If the police cannot act on black‑and‑white contradictions in official documents, must every fraud wait for a court order before investigation begins?

 

Disclaimer

This commentary is based on filed police reports, documentary evidence, and public records. It is written in the spirit of transparency and public interest, and is not intended to prejudice any ongoing proceedings before the courts.