Newsletter
(published on 11.04.2026)
09.04.2026
Wilson Wong Fu Sheng, Wilson Wong
Our client was charged under Section 44(1A) of the Road Transport Act 1987 for driving under influence causing injury to another person, which upon conviction, can be sentenced with:
1. imprisonment between 7 to 10 years;
2. fine between RM30,000.00 to RM50,000.00; and
3. disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's license for 7 years or more.
Upon accepting our representation, the prosecution offered an alternative charge under Section 45A(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 for only driving under influence, which upon conviction, can be sentenced with:
1. imprisonment between 1 day to 2 years;
2. fine between RM10,000.00 to RM30,000.00; and
3. disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's license for 2 years or more.
Upon our client pleading guilty to the lower charge, we presented our mitigation submissions and managed to obtain the following sentence:
1. 1 day imprisonment;
2. fine of RM30,000.00; and
3. disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's license for 2 years.
This highlights the importance of being able to put forth good mitigation submissions to secure the lowest sentence possible for our client. Upon serving 1 day imprisonment, our client can now go home with the matter off his shoulders.
#criminallawyer #lawyer #peguam #mitigation #representation
Newsletter
(published on 16.12.2025)
16.12.2025
Wilson Wong Fu Sheng, Wilson Wong
Our client was charged under Section 6(1) of the Selangor Entertainment and Places of Entertainment Enactment 1995 for operating a karaoke entertainment center without a license. We have sent our representation to Subang Jaya City Council (MBSJ) stating that our client was not the tenant of the premises at the material time. Today, the prosecuting officer agreed with our representation and subsequently withdrawn the summons. Our client can now go home with the matter off his shoulders.
We also would like to thank our intern, Muhammad Nur Aiman Irham, for assisting us in preparing the representation.
--------------------------------------------------------
Anak guam kami dituduh di bawah Seksyen 6(1) Enakmen Hiburan dan Tempat-tempat Hiburan Selangor 1995 kerana menjalankan pusat hiburan karaoke tanpa lesen. Kami telah menghantar surat representasi kami kepada Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (MBSJ) dengan menyatakan bahawa anak guam kami bukannya penyewa premis pada masa material tersebut. Pada hari ini, pegawai pendakwa bersetuju dengan representasi kami dan kemudiannya menarik balik saman tersebut. Anak guam kami kini boleh pulang tanpa lagi memikul beban perkara ini.
Kami juga berterima kasih kepada intern kami, Muhammad Nur Aiman Irham yang membantu kami menyediakan representasi tersebut.
#lawyer #lawyering #peguam #malaysianlawyer #criminallawyer #criminaldefence #daa #representation #representasi #magistrate #municipal #mahkamah #subangjaya #mbsj #majlisbandarayasubangjaya #wilsonwong #messrswilsonwong #tetuanwilsonwong
Newsletter
(published on 08.12.2025)
In our recent appeal to the High Court, namely, Kusatex Sdn Bhd & Anor v Wirafoam Industries Sdn Bhd [2025] MLRHU 2706 (Wilson Wong Fu Sheng together with Rayveni Asogan, Sean Dudley, Sean Dudley & Associates and Wilson Wong), the High Court agreed with us (Defendants/Appellants), in a situation where the Plaintiff had pleaded that there were 127 invoices, and the said 127 invoices were never tendered before the Court, Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 can be invoked to urge the Court to draw an adverse inference against the Plaintiff/Respondent for withholding the said 127 invoices in its possession. The Plaintiff never explained the absence of invoices (and delivery orders), despite relying on them as the basis of its claim.
Therefore, the High Court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proof under section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950.
You may download the case through the link below: