PYQ – 2017/2018

Question 1(a)

 section 4 of AMLATAFA explain the elements put up until subsection 3

 give case study on AMLATAFA (we did masa first tuto video)
 Appendix 4 from amlatafa act transaction that may be sus(picion) for current situation – in
this question number 2 or 9 and 27 (depending on the question might be different)
 Section 14 of AMLATAFA – report by reporting institution
 Points from the bank negara Malaysia article
 point 16 – Reliance of third parties (applicable if got third party)
 point 18 – reporting institution (definition is under s.3)
 point 19 – wire transfer (got sent to south Africa as a cross border transfer)
 point 21 – cash threshold report (definition and applicability and reporting cash threshold
report)
 point 22 – suspicious transaction report
 conclude

Question 1 (b)

 notes chapter 2
 explain who/what is a bank and customer
 Robinson case, thevron case and great railway and stoney case(up to you to add) to explain
the common law position
 insert Malaysia position – oriental bank of Malaya case and rubber industries case
 conclude

Question 2

Whether the bank has the right to honour the transfer from the partnership account into Andrew’s
personal account. (Chapter 3)

 discuss banker’s duty

 Young v Grote and Joachimson case
 apply
 conclude – memang ade right to honour the transfer as Andrew is a signatory

Whether the bank has breached his duty of care by paying out the money into Andre’s personal
account (chapter 9)
  Redmond case to explain that bank has the duty to take reasonable care and skill
 Lipkin case
 Selangor Rubber United Estate case
 apply
 conclude

Whether the bank could raise the defence of section 82 of Bills of exchange act

 s.95 of BEA to explains good faith

 s.2 of FSA (financial service act) definition what is in the ordinary course of business
 s.82 of BEA
 to support how to interpret s.82 - Oriental bank of Malaya v Rubber Industry case (topic 2) –
the bank transfers the money must have done so without negligence. The bank must know
who is their customer and who is the account that is to be opened for.
 apply
 conclusion – the bank is not liable because they did it in good faith and knew who Andrew is

Question 3

The first issue is to discuss whether the customer has fulfilled their common law duty

 Macmillan and Greenwood duty

The second issue is to discuss whether the bank is liable for the forgery

 S.24 of BEA 1949

 Sykt Perkapalan Timor v UMBC/ UAB v Tai Soon Heng Construction S/B

The third issue is whether the bank can raise the defence of S.73A

 S.73A
 Public bank,
 Leolaris 1 & 2
 CIMB Bank Berhad v Panaron Control Sdn Bhd
Question 4

1. it is payable according to the wordings according to s.9(2) of BEA - (2) Where the sum payable is
expressed in words and also in figures, and there is a discrepancy between the two, the sum denoted
by the words is the amount payable

2. s.14 first and then s.11

3. S.73A issues about cheques

4. The issue that arose in this given situation is whether E can recover the amount of the bill from A
and has any rights against D. Section 27 (1)(a) stated that any valuable consideration for a bill may be
constituted by any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. Moreover, section 27(2)
states that where value has at any time been given for a bill the holder is deemed to be a holder for
value as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill who become parties prior to such time. Section
29(1)(a) states that a holder in due course is a holder who has taken a bill, complete and regular on
the face of it, under the following conditions, namely that he became the holder of it before it was
overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonoured, if such was the fact. Section
29(b) that he took the bill in good faith and for value, and that at the time the bill was negotiated to
him, he had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it. Section29(3) states that
a holder (whether for value or not) who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and
who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it, has all the rights of that holder in due
course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder. Applying this to the given
situation, D is the holder for the value as he paid for the bill, E took the bill from D hence, he can
enforce his rights against all prior parties such as A and D although he did not acquire the bill by
consideration as stated in section 29(3).