Extortion

s383- whoever intentionally puts any person in fear

of any injury to that person or to any other, and
thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear
to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into
a valuable security, commits extortion.

S384- punishment max 10 years imprisonment, or fine

or whipping or with any two of such punishments.

Elements of Extortion
i.
Threat of injury

There must be fear of injury inducing the

delivery of property.

Threat of injury either to that person himself or

any other person.

s44- injury means any harm illegally caused

to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

The injury must be illegal.

s43-illegal refers to everything which is an offence, or
which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a
civil action.

Threat of injury (cont)

Fear of injury must be communicated through an act.

Arjan Sigh v PP
A was charged for an attempt of extortion in
respect of the letters addressed to the complainant.
Held: Appeal allowed. The gist of the
offence of extortion was the putting of another person
in fear of an injury and to support the conviction, the
intending extortioner must have done some act with
this intention. The mere act of writing and detaining a
letter is not an attempt but a preparatory step towards
commission of that offence.

Threat of injury (cont)

The fear of injury must be conveyed by express threats.

See illustration (a)-(c) s383.

A threat of injury may be implied

from the words uses.
Beh Tuck Seng v R [1947] 1 MLJ 197
 A was charged for extortion.
The threat was via words of the A. Held: It is clear
that the complainant was put in fear and that he was
induced thereby to hand over his money to the A.

Threat of injury (cont)

A threat of injury may also be conveyed by the

countenance (approval) of the accused.
Tan Cheng Kooi v PP [1972] 2 MLJ 115
Held: if words innocent on their surface were uttered
with overtones or implications of an injury,
there would be the use of a threat of injury.

Threat of injury (cont)

The threat of injury is not confined to physical injury.

It also covers body, mind, reputation or property.

The threat can take the form of using influences

of power to the detriment (disadvantage) of the
complainant.
Meer Abbas Ali v Omed Ali
Abbas Ali was guilty of extortion. He
had very great
influence that may affect the complainants position
in the Small Cause Court Judges.

No extortion;

When there is no threat of injury

to the complainant or any other person.
See Lee Choh Pet v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 197

When there is
no threat to induce the payment of money.
See Mohamed Taufik v PP [1975] 1 MLJ 36

When the accused was forcibly take the property o

r valuable security from the victim.
See Jadunandan Singh & Anors case

Elements of Extortion (cont)

ii. Threat to exercise legal powers

Issue:
whether a person who is empowered to exercise
certain legal powers can be liable for extortion , when
he threatens to exercise his legal powers if his demand
for payment of a sum of money is not met by the
complainant.
Two different views:
a)
Not liable for extortion
b)
Liable for extortion

Threat to exercise legal powers (cont)

a) Not liable for extortion Vincent Lee v R

Held: the exercise of legal powers however done can
never constitute harm.
Abu Hassan v PP
Held: putting a person in fear of injury through the
exercise of legal powers did not constitute the offence of
extortion.

b) liable for extortion

The exercise of legal powers can constitute an offence

of extortion.
Loh Kwang Seang v PP
Rigby J said: If A, knowing that B has committed an
offence
in respect of which it is As duty to take action against
him,
threatens to take such action against him unless B pays
him a sum of money, and, in consideration of such
money being paid by B, forbears to take such action,
then A has committed the offences of both corruption
and
extortionthe offence is completed by the act of
obtaining
the money as a direct consequence of the threat to bring
the criminal accusation.

liable for extortion (cont)

Ling Kai Huat v PP [1963] 1 MLJ 123

Held: While to threaten to use the process of the law is
lawful, to do so for the purpose of
demanding money or other illegal purpose is unlawful
and constitutes injury under s44 PC.

liable for extortion (cont)

The exercise of legal powers can constitute an offence of

extortion because it was an abuse of legal power.
PP v Kang Siew Chong [1968] 2 MLJ 39
The accused, a police constable was acquitted
of attempted extortion. PP appeal and it was allowed.
Held: the threat is made with the object of exacting
payment of money that is not due, it is an abuse of the
exercise of that power and is therefore illegal, and such
a threat made with such an object constitute a threat
of injury within the meaning of s44 PC.

liable for extortion (cont)

 According to Ratanlal;
threat to use the process of law for the purpose of
enforcing payment of more than is due is illegal and
such a threat made with such an object is a threat of
injury.

Elements of Extortion (cont)

iii. Delivery of property

The offence of extortion is in the actual delivery

of possession of property by the person put in fear and
the offence is not complete before such delivery.
Chinniah v PP
Held: extortion consisted of two acts, one of putting in
fear of injury and the other of taking delivery of property.
36

Deliver of property (cont)

Tan Chin Keng v PP [1964] MLJ 316

The attempt to commit extortion has proceeded so far
towards completion that a person has been put in
fear of injury, or that there has been an attempt to excite
such fear, but an offence is incomplete because there has
been no delivery of property, etc.
Note: it must be fear of injury that dishonestly induces
the person put in fear to deliver property, valuable
security or anything which may be converted into
valuable security.

Deliver of property (cont)

According to Ratanlal:
The chief element in the essence of extortion is that the
inducement must be dishonest. It is not sufficient that
there should be wrongful loss caused by an individual
but the person putting an individual in fear of injury
must have the intention that wrongful loss should be
caused. Where the accused honestly believes that the
complainant had taken the money believing him (the
accused), an attempt to get it back cannot be said to be
with the intention of
causing wrongful loss to him.

Note: A bona fide belief in a right to the property can

negate dishonesty.