Criminal Law II Kosyalya A/P A Siva Kumar [012018090369]

Comparison between Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) & Criminal Misappropriation (CMA).
Compare/Contras Criminal Misappropriation
Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT)
t item (CMA).
Lawfully entrusted with the
property and he dishonestly Dishonestly misappropriates or
misappropriates the same, or converts to his own use, or causes
Definition
wilfully suffers any other person to other person to dispose of any
do, instead of discharging the trust property
attached to it.
 Section 405 – Element of
 Section 403 – Elements of
Section CBT
CMA and Punishment
 Section 406 – Punishment
Must be present :
Must be present :
1) The accused must be
1) The accused
entrusted with property or
misappropriated that
with dominion over
property and converted the
property;
same to his own use
dishonestly.
2) The person who entrusted
must :
2) The movable property
i. Dishonestly
belonged to that
misappropriate or
complainant.
convert to his use
that property or
ii. Dishonestly use or
Ingredients
dispose of that
property or
wilfully suffer any
other person to do
so 

a) in violation of
any directions of
law prescribing
the mode in which
such property is to
be discharged and
Any legal contract
made touching
discharge of such
trust. 
General Principle 1. Accused must be in 1. Misappropriation of
 entrustment or is in a
dominion over a property.
2. Dishonest misappropriate or
misappropriate or convert to
his own use of the property.
3. Dishonestly disposes the
property in violation of any
direction of law or legal
contract.
Upon any prosecution for any
offence of criminal breach of trust,
an employer who deducts the
employee’s contribution from the
wages payable to the employee for
credit to any employee fund, by
whatever name called, established
by any law for the time being in
force, shall be deemed to have
been entrusted with the amount of
the contribution so deducted by
him and if he makes default in the
payment of such contribution to the
said fund in violation of the said
Explanation
law, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the
said contribution in violation of a
direction of law within the
meaning of this section.
property of another person.
2. Conversion of property to
one own use.
3. Causing another person to
dispose the property.
1. A dishonest
misappropriation for a
time only is a
misappropriation within
the meaning of this
section.
2. A person who finds
property not in the
possession of any other
person, and takes such
property for the purpose of
protecting it for, or of
restoring it to the owner,
does not take or
misappropriate it
dishonestly, and is not
guilty of an offence; but he
is guilty of the offence
above defined, if he
appropriates it to his own
use, when he knows or has
the means of discovering
the owner, or before he has
used reasonable means to
discover and give notice to
the owner, and has kept
the property a reasonable
time to enable the owner to
claim it.
 Chin Wah Tuan Puteh v Dragon
Facts: The complainant lent her Facts: The accused person found
gold necklace to the accused in a cheque payable to one Captain
order for his wife to wear it at a Strong. He attempted to cash out
party. The necklace was not the cheque but could not do so
returned to the complainant despite owing to the absence of Captain
frequently asking for its return, and Strong's endorsement.
eventually the accused admitted
that he had pawned it. Held: The court found that
although there was no conversion
Held: The evidence proved that since he did not manage to cash
the accused had dishonestly out the cheque, he clearly
converted the property to his own misappropriated the cheque when
use. he dishonestly attempted to cash
it.

Case Law Yeoh Teck Chye

Facts: The second accused, the Tan Sri Tan Hian Tsin v PP
manager of a bank, with the Facts: The MD of the company
knowledge of the first accused, which paid money into the bank
the Deputy General Manager, account of another company of
had granted overdraft facilities for which he and his wife were the
amounts in excess of the approved sole shareholders.
limits to the third accused.
However he had no such Held: Therefore, in this case,
authority to approve these excess setting aside property for the
overdrawn amounts. appellant as well as his brother's
firm could both constitute
Held: There had been entrustment misappropriation.
to or dominion over the property of
the bank and that the second
accused had no authority to allow
the overdrawn amounts.

Imprisonment for not be less than Imprisonment for not more than
six months and not more than five ten years and with whipping, and
Punishment
years and whipping and shall also shall also be liable to fine.
be liable to fine.
 Both offence is about misappropriation of property of another
person and dishonestly disposing the property.
Similarities
 The punishment for both offence are similar in nature which is
imprisonment with whipping and liable for fine.