Cyber Crime : Computer Hacking

Singapore's Computer Misuse Act 1993 regulates the laws on the prohibition of Computer Hacking. Below are some interesting cases for your knowledge, all from Singapore.

In PP v Muhammad Nuzahan b Kamal [2000] 1 SLR 34; the Defendant was charged for hacking into a system. The High Court of Singapore imposed a stiff penalty of 2 months imprisonment for 2 offences that the Defendant was charged for. The earlier punishment of probation imposed by the Magistrate in Singapore was overturned as the High Court viewed computer hacking to be a very serious crime which can undermine the effectiveness of the entire Information Technology Industry in Singapore. In fact the Judge, Yong Pung How CJ is quoted in the Judgment to say:-

“Policy considerations, the far fetching effects which the offences have on the public interest if their pervasion is not halted at an early stage, and the seriousness with which Parliament views cyber-crime, all mandated the imposition of custodial sentence”

The same Judge decided another case – Lim Siong Khee v PP [2001] 2 SLR 342, where a spurned lover accessed his former lover’s e-mail address and send e-mails from that e-mail address pretending to sign off as the lady; to 3 of her friends. The e-mail contained intimate details of their earlier relationship and their holiday in Europe.

Yong CJ dismissed the Appellant’s contention that he had her consent to access her e-mail and to sent those e-mails. His Lordship felt that even in the event consent was given to him, it was still immaterial as the consent (if given) was merely to access the e-mail and does not translate into authority to send the lurid e-mails. His Lordship was quoted to say:-

“…even if Mr Lim (the Appellant) was given Ms Chong’s (the ex-lover) password to help her access her e-mail while they were in Europe, he had no authority whatsoever to access that account to send off lurid e-mails or to check her personal movements and affairs.”

In another Singapore case, Navaseelan Balasingam v PP [2007] 1 SLR 767, the Appelant Navaseelan appealed against the sentence. He was guilty of using counterfeit ATM cards to fraudulently withdraw money from ATM machines. His Lordship, Tay Yong Kwang J, was quoted in his Judgment to say:-

“As I have stated, the security of Singapore’s financial institution and protection of public interest against electronical financial scams are paramount…”

The Appellant was eventually sentenced to 7 ½ years imprisonment.

The principles from these cases should be welcomed and adopted in Malaysia. As we embrace IT usage in our daily routine, the sanctity and safety of IT related machines/software must be guarded. The theme to protect public interest and to ensure people continue to trust IT is prevalent in the cases above. Malaysian Court too, in the event these type of cases are brought there; must quickly stamp their mark and ensure future IT scammers and fraudsters will be driven away.

In Malaysia our Computer Crimes Act 1997 is similar to the Computer Misuse Act of Singapore. We blogged about the Computer Crime Act before.

Note : RWL wishes to thank Mr Foong Cheng Leong who conducted research on this area and provided the 3 said cases for our continued series on Cyber Crime. His comments were also taken into account before we blogged this. You may visit his Blog at www.xes.cx

Forensic expert: Teoh could have been dragged (the Sun)

SHAH ALAM (Aug 13, 2009) : A police forensic expert says political aide Teoh Beng Hock, 30, could have been dragged before his body was found sprawled on Plaza Masalam's 5th floor lobby.

Chief Insp Mazli Jusoh, 31, from the Selangor police headquarters' forensic branch, told the inquest into Teoh's death that the dragging was possible after being shown photos of scratches found on the sole of Teoh's right shoe.

Asked by Selangor state government counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar whether it was possible that Teoh could have been dragged:

Mazli: No, because normally if a person is being dragged from behind, he would resist with his heels. It would not affect the sole of the shoe.

Malik: Would it be possible if he was dragged from the side?

Mazli: It would.

Mazli then told the court that the white, chalky scratch marks which exposed the sole were not a foreign material but part of the cloth that held the sole to the shoe, adding that he was unable to find a missing portion of the front sole of the shoe despite looking for it.

"I searched the 14th floor near the window frame, and also on the fifth floor, and the areas below it, including a flower bed of red flowers and a parking lot below, but I couldn't find the missing piece," said Mazli.

Shahrul Othman

He said no test was done on the chalky white substance found on the shoe and that a fingerprint test had failed to turn up any prints on a window frame on the 14th floor.

When questioned by Bar Council's Richard Wee, Mazli, who is the inquest's 13th witness, said it was possible for a person to step through the window, which was 0.6m-wide and 0.9m in height, adding that an examination of the building outside the window found no sharp protrusions which could have torn Teoh's pants as he fell.

Wee: Is it possible to step out the window?

Mazli: Yes.

Wee: You said his pants were torn. Did you see anything that could have snagged his pants?

Mazli: No, I saw nothing. It looked smooth ...

Asked if further test was conducted, Mazli said he had taken swabs from a stain found on the window, and from the sofa on which Teoh had rested, but he had not done any polylight testing of the sofa, or the spot on the fifth floor where Teoh's body was found.

Mazli said he had not done any testing for fingerprints on Teoh's clothing, body or belt.

Witness number No.14, DSP Shahrul Othman Mansor, who is with Bukit Aman's Cheras forensic laboratory, told the inquest he found a footprint on the floor below the same window when he conducted further checks of the Selangor MACC's office three days after the incident.

Shahrul said he found faint trace of a shoe print measuring nine inches on the inner ledge of the window, and that he ordered a photograph taken of the print.

Mazli Jusoh

However, when questioned further by Selangor state government's counsel Sreekant Pillai, Shahrul said there was a possibility of contamination, as he had conducted his forensic examination three days after the incident.

Shahrul said he did not dust the window for prints as the investigating officer ASP Ahmad Nazri informed that such work had already been done by Selangor forensics.

He added that an inspection of the walls around the window turned up no evidence of a scuffle or fight that could be linked to Teoh's death, and said the only damage he found at the window was a broken handle and a screw.

"I found the window unlocked because the locking mechanism was broken, what was left was only the base of the lock. There was also marks of a newly-broken screw," said Shahrul.

Hearing continues tomorrow.

Wills, Probate & Letter of Administration (Part I)

Just a short note on Wills in Malaysia.

For non-Muslims, once a person passes on and leaves a Will behind, please see a lawyer with that Will as soon as possible. The lawyer would file a Petition into High Court and apply for a legal Document, called Probate.

The Lawyer would have to, inter alia file Affidavits affirmed by the 2 Witnesses to the Will, and also the Affidavit by the Executor/Executrix. All in all, it normally takes around 3-9 months (depending on which High Court you go to) to extract a Probate Order.

There will be a requirement to provide some money as Administration Bond, and that money will be paid into Court. This Bond operates as a quasi undertaking from the Executor/Executrix that he/she will perform their duties as per the Will.

With a Probate, the Will will be given effect and the person named as an Executor (male) of Executrix (female); in the Will, can now proceed to distribute the properties of the deceased as per the Will.

The Executor/Executrix will be a quasi-Trustee, and under the law, the duty expected of that person is onerous. In short the Executor/Executrix must be transparent and must not breach the duties expected of him/her. He/she may be sued in his/her personal capacity if there is a breach.

We will Blog on the Laws on Wills and also Laws governing people who passed on without Wills, in due time.

Malaysian Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

Probably the most infamous provision in DDA 1952, is S39B. But there are many other provisions in DDA which describes the relevnt offences and prescribes the penalties.

DDA 1952 is an intriguing statute, with much cross reference when one read the Act. The Act is drafted to list down the offences and then list down the punishment for each offence. S39B, for example does not define the offence, but actually prescribe the punishment when a certain offence related to drugs is proven in Court.

Let us give you some examples of provisions in DDA listing down offences related to drugs:-

- S4(1), S5(1) & (2), S6 DDA 1952; restricts the importation, exportation & possession of drugs such as raw opium, coca leaves, poppy-straws and cannabis.

- s6B; inter alia, restricts the planting and cultivation of certain plants which raw opium, coca leaves, poppy-straws and cannabis may be obtained

- s9; relates to import/export/possession of opium

- S10; makes it an offence for anyone allowing their premises to be used to make opium or to sell, or to smoke opium.

- S12 (2); refers to Parts III, IV & V of the First Schedule of DDA (which lists down all drugs deemed illegal in Malaysia) and makes it an offence for anyone to be in possession of the drugs listed therein.

- S13; makes it an offence for keeping or using one's premises for unlawful administration of drug.

- S14; if one administer the drug onto another, is an offence.

- S15; if one self-administer the drug, it is an offence.

- S20; allows certain drugs to be imported as approved by the relevant Minister, but any other drug imported, is an offence.

- S21; Any person bringing in drugs into Malaysia but on transit to another country, commits an offence.

These are just some examples of offences in DDA. There are provisions (as mentioned above) which prescribes the penalty:-

- S12(3); any person contravening S12(2) as mentioned above, may be fined for RM1,000 or imprisoned for a 5 years, max (or both)

- S4(2), S5(3), S6; penalty for importation, exportation and possession of raw opium, coca leaves, poppy-straws & cannabis. S4 (between 3-5 years imprison), S5 (between 3-5 years imprison) & S6 (fine max RM20,000 or max 5 years imprison).

- S6B (3); Max life imprisoned and whipping of not less than 6 strokes.

- S10(2) max fine RM5,000 or imprisoned for max 2 years (or both).

- S13; max fine RM10,000 or imprisoned for max 5 years (or both).

- S14(1); max fine RM10,000 or imprisoned for max 3 years (or both)

- S15(1); max fine RM5,000 or imprisoned for max 2 years.

- S39; for all other offences in DDA where no prescribed penalty, max fine RM5,000 or imprisoned max 2 years (or both)

- S39A (1); increased penalty if the weight of drugs found on the suspect is above the list in S39A (1) (please see statute, too long to list in this posting), Imprisoned between 2-5 years and shall be whipped between 3-9 strokes.

- S39A (2); increased penalty if the weight of drugs found on the suspect is above the list in S39A (2) (please see statute, too long to list in this posting), Imprisoned between 10 years to max life and shall be whipped minimum 10 strokes.

- S39B; under S37, the Court will presume a person is a trafficker if the drugs found is above the weight as listed in S37 (please see statute, too long to list in this posting). And if found guilty of trafficking, the penalty is Death.

S84 Courts of Judicature Act 1964

The Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is the Act related to the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court. The Statute lists the jurisdictions of each of the aforementioned Courts, composition of the Court of Appeal and Federal Court etc etc.

The Perak case, was referred to the Federal Court by the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, on the issues related to the Perak Constitution. Apparently, referring to Section 84 of the CJA, a matter can be referred directly to the Federal Court, if the matter is related to Constitutional issues.

However, the Federal Court on 23rd March 2009 referred to S84 and held that S84 can only be referred to, when dealing with Federal Constitution and not State Constitution. This would mean that the Perak case would be be heard before the High Court Judge, and if the losing party appeals, the case may go all the way back to Federal Court again, but this time as a normal case (which usually goes through the usual appeal process).

Below is S84 for your reading pleasure.

84. Reference of constitutional question by High Court.

(1) Where in any proceedings in the High Court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of Constitution the Judge hearing the proceedings may stay the same on such terms as may be just to await the decision of the question by the Federal Court.

(2) An order staying proceedings under this section may be made by the Judge of his own motion or on the application of any party and shall be made at such stage of the proceedings as the Judge may see fit having regard to the decision of such questions of fact as may be necessary to be settled to assist the Federal Court in deciding the question which has arisen and to the speedy and economical final determination of the proceedings.

(3) Where an order for stay of proceedings has been made under this section the Judge shall state the question which in his opinion has arisen as to the effect of the Constitution in the form of a special case which so far as may be possible shall state the said question in a form which shall permit of an answer being given in the affirmative or the negative.

(4) Where a Judge shall have stated a special case under this section the same shall be transmitted to the Federal Court in accordance with the rules of court of the Federal Court.