Kota Kinabalu: An unemployed man was jailed four years and ordered to pay RM40,000 compensation after being found guilty of cheating a buyer in a vehicle purchase scam.
Magistrate Wan Farrah Farriza Wan Ghazali convicted and sentenced Alfred Lazim Masida, 50, after finding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Advertisement
.gif)
Alfred was found guilty of cheating Edwin Michael into believing that he was the owner of a Toyota Hilux and dishonestly inducing the victim to hand over RM40,000 as a deposit for the purchase of the vehicle.
The offence was committed at about 11pm on Sept 24, 2024, at Restoran Seri Selera, Kampung Air Sedco Square, here.
The charge under Section 420 of the Penal Code carries a jail term of between one and 10 years, whipping and a fine upon conviction.
Wan Farrah ordered Alfred to serve four years’ imprisonment from the date of conviction on June 16.
Alfred was spared whipping as he is above 50 years old.
The court also ordered Alfred to pay RM40,000 compensation to the victim under Section 426(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), in default four months’ jail.
In her judgment, Wan Farrah held that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt and that Alfred had failed to raise any reasonable doubt in his defence.
She said the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and would serve as a deterrent to others.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Arfa Anchal Khan Muhammad Munir Khan urged the court to impose a firm custodial sentence, submitting that the offence involved deliberate and calculated cheating which caused the victim to suffer a loss of RM40,000.
The prosecution also applied for compensation under Section 426 of the CPC, saying that the victim had yet to recover any of the money and continued to bear the financial loss arising from the offence.
Arfa further submitted that the case involved clear misrepresentation, abuse of trust and substantial financial loss to the victim, warranting a deterrent sentence in the public interest.
The prosecution called six witnesses during the trial while Alfred, who was unrepresented, testified as the sole defence witness.
