非法贷款, 抵押的房子被转名; 还是买卖交易?[2026]

案件介绍

  1. 这宗马来西亚高庭案件，是关于槟城大山脚一间住宅产业的转名纠纷。两名原告原本是这间屋子的注册屋主。后来，被告通过买卖合约、赎回银行抵押贷款和注册转让，成为新的注册屋主。
  2. 这宗案件的核心争议很直接，但后果很严重。原告说，他们从来没有真正要卖屋，他们只是要借钱，签署文件只是作为借款担保。被告则说，这是一宗真正的产业买卖，他已经付款，也合法完成转名。

案情背景

  1. 在转名之前，这间产业已经抵押给马来亚银行，作为房屋贷款的担保。原告当时面对经济困难。他们的说法是，他们只是想借 RM110,000.00，不是要卖掉自己的屋子。
  2. 原告主张，被告或与被告有关的人士，其实是在进行无牌放贷。他们说，对方要求他们签署买卖合约和转让表格，只是为了保障借款可以追回，并不是真正买卖。
  3. 原告进一步说，虽然口头上谈的是更大的数额，但实际只有 RM85,100.00 存入第一原告的银行户口。他们也说，他们已经把 RM63,500.00 分别存入一些据称由被告或其代理人提供的银行户口。

原告的申诉

  1. 原告的主要申诉点是，RM350,000.00 的买卖价并不真实，买卖合约只是伪装，产业转让涉及欺诈和违法，被告的地契注册应在国家土地法典第340(2)条下被撤销，而且整宗交易违反1951年放贷人法令和1950年合约法令第24条。
  2. 原告要求法庭宣告2023年7月31日的买卖合约和转让文件无效。他们也要求普通赔偿、加重赔偿、惩罚性赔偿、利息和堂费。

被告的抗辩

  1. 被告的立场是，这是一宗真实买卖。双方同意的售价是 RM350,000.00。原告要求很高的 RM110,000.00 定金，也要求大约12个月后才交吉(handover vacant possession)，并在赎回银行贷款之前继续供房贷。
  2. 被告说，他已经以现金支付 RM110,000.00 定金，而原告也在合约里明文承认收到这笔钱。之后，被告在2024年8月20日直接支付 RM195,750.50 给马来亚银行，以赎回这间屋子的抵押贷款。
  3. 被告的主要抗辩点是，原告签署了有效买卖文件，承认收到定金，知道银行贷款被赎回，当时没有及时反对，也没有证明他和“Jeffrey”有任何关系。原告是在转名完成、需要交屋后，才开始投诉欺诈和违法。
  4. 被告提出反诉，要求原告交出空置屋子、根据合约第6条支付每年8%的迟延交屋利息、撤销原告所登记的私人 caveat，并支付堂费。

适用法律

  1. 国家土地法典第340条的原则是，注册屋主享有不可推翻的地契权利，除非能证明欺诈、虚假陈述、伪造、无效文件或非法取得。换句话说，原告必须拿出证据证明本案落入这些例外情况。
  2. 1950年合约法令第24条说明，如果合约的目的或对价违法、欺诈、被法律禁止，或违反公共政策，该合约就是无效。原告就是依靠这一条，主张这份买卖合约只是非法放贷的包装。
  3. 1951年放贷人法令第15条说明，无牌放贷人的借贷合约不能执行。不过，法庭也注意到，原告并没有清楚列明被告到底违反该法令的哪一个具体操作条文。

引用案例

  1. 在 Pearl Streams Sdn Bhd v Beverly Heights Resources Sdn Bhd & Anor and another appeal [2025] MLJU 3126，上诉庭说明，一旦文件被放入共同文件册的 Part A，该文件的真实性、内容和内容真实性都会被视为承认。之后再来挑战这些文件，会非常困难。
  2. 法庭也参考 Low Han Kok & Anor v Yap Sien Toh & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 684; [2023] MLJU 741。该案说明，如果土地搜索、地契和转让文件已经放入 Part A，当事人之后不能又说这些文件的内容仍然有争议。
  3. 原告也引用 Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418、Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 MLJ 333、Mahmood Ooyub v Li Chee Loong [2020] 6 MLJ 755 和 Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd [2023] 10 CLJ 187。不过，法庭认为，本案事实不能支持原告的说法。

法庭分析

  1. 本案的地契和转让文件都被放在共同文件册 Part A。因此，原告被视为已经承认这些文件的真实性、内容和内容真实性。单凭这一点，原告要推翻被告的注册地契，已经面对很大的法律障碍。
  2. 即使法庭进一步分析事实，法庭认为这宗买卖是真实的。RM110,000.00 定金已经在合约里被承认。RM195,750.50 的银行赎回款项也有证据证明。虽然剩余 RM44,249.50 的现金付款没有直接文件证明，但法庭从整体事实和双方行为推论，这笔余额也已经支付。
  3. 法庭不接受原告所谓非法放贷的故事。第一原告承认，她没有和被告交易，她接触的是一个叫“Jeffrey”的人。她后来也接受 Jeffrey 不是被告。WhatsApp 信息是在买卖合约之后出现，而且没有把被告或产业买卖和所谓非法贷款联系起来。
  4. 法庭也发现原告证据有不少矛盾。所谓贷款数额一时说 RM110,000.00，一时说 RM80,000.00，后来又出现其他数字。所谓还款也汇给与被告无关的公司。泼红漆事件发生时，被告已经是注册屋主，说被告破坏自己的屋子，在没有证据下并不合理。

最终判决

  1. 原告没有证明欺诈、违法、伪装交易、非法放贷、无效文件或非法取得地契。原告的索赔被驳回。被告的反诉获准。原告必须交出空置屋子，支付以 RM350,000.00 计算、年利率8%的迟延交屋利息，即每天70，直到交屋为止；原告的 caveat 必须撤销；原告也须支付 RM20,000.00 堂费。
  2. 真正昂贵的，从来不是律师咨询费，而是你为了省下咨询费而做错的每一个决定。法律问题最危险的不是没有答案，而是在没有专业分析前就乱回复、乱签文件、乱付款、乱妥协或一拖再拖；因为每拖一天、每走错一步，都可能失去关键证据、最佳时机与谈判筹码。等问题恶化才找律师，往往已不只是原本的案件，而是难以挽回的残局。付费咨询买的不是几句话，而是 Wilson Kuek 律师的实战经验与判断力，帮你避开错误、看清风险、做对第一步。不要用未来更大的代价，去换今天省下的咨询费。第一时间付费咨询 Wilson Kuek 律师及其专业团队，先看清局势再行动；如需正式处理案件，请尽早委任我们。Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368) 。

Introduction

  1. This Malaysian High Court case concerned a residential property in Bukit Mertajam, Penang. The two Plaintiffs were the former registered owners of the property. The Defendant later became the registered proprietor after a Sale and Purchase Agreement, redemption of the bank charge, and registration of transfer.
  2. The central dispute was simple but serious. The Plaintiffs said they never truly sold the property. They alleged that the documents were merely used as security for an unlawful loan. The Defendant said this was a genuine property sale, fully paid and lawfully registered.

Factual Background

  1. Before the transfer, the property was charged to Malayan Banking Berhad for a housing loan. The Plaintiffs were facing financial difficulty. They alleged they sought a loan of RM110,000.00, not a sale of their home.
  2. The Plaintiffs’ claim was that the Defendant, or persons allegedly connected to him, acted like unlicensed moneylenders. They said they were required to sign a Sale and Purchase Agreement and a Memorandum of Transfer only as security for repayment of the alleged loan.
  3. The Plaintiffs alleged that only RM85,100.00 was deposited into P1’s bank account, although a larger loan was discussed. They also claimed that they repaid RM63,500.00 into various bank accounts allegedly supplied by the Defendant or his agents.
  4. The Plaintiffs’ main argument points were that the RM350,000.00 sale was not genuine, the agreement was a sham, the transfer was tainted by fraud and illegality, the Defendant’s title should be set aside under section 340(2) of the National Land Code, and the transaction contravened the Moneylenders Act 1951 and section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.
  5. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 July 2023 and the Memorandum of Transfer void. They also claimed general damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, interest and costs.

Defendant’s Arguments

  1. The Defendant’s case was that the transaction was a real sale. The agreed price was RM350,000.00. The Plaintiffs requested a high deposit of RM110,000.00, a long vacant possession period of about 12 months, and continued servicing of the housing loan pending redemption.
  2. The Defendant said he paid the RM110,000.00 deposit in cash, which the Plaintiffs expressly acknowledged in the agreement. He then paid RM195,750.50 directly to Malayan Banking Berhad on 20 August 2024 to redeem the bank charge.
  3. The Defendant’s argument points were that the Plaintiffs signed valid sale documents, acknowledged the deposit, knew about the redemption, raised no timely objection, failed to prove any connection between him and “Jeffrey”, and only complained after registration when vacant possession had to be delivered.
  4. The Defendant counterclaimed for vacant possession of the property, late delivery interest at 8% per annum under clause 17.6 of the agreement, removal of the Plaintiffs’ caveat, and costs.

Applicable Laws

  1. Section 340 of the National Land Code gives indefeasible title to a registered proprietor, subject only to limited exceptions such as fraud, misrepresentation, forgery, void instrument, or unlawful acquisition. The burden was on the Plaintiffs to prove that one of these exceptions applied.
  2. Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 makes an agreement void if its object or consideration is unlawful, fraudulent, forbidden by law, or opposed to public policy. The Plaintiffs relied on this provision to argue that the sale agreement was only a disguise for illegal moneylending.
  3. Section 15 of the Moneylenders Act 1951 provides that a moneylending agreement made by an unlicensed moneylender is unenforceable. However, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs did not properly plead specific operative provisions of that Act.

Case Law

  1. In Pearl Streams Sdn Bhd v Beverly Heights Resources Sdn Bhd & Anor and another appeal [2025] MLJU 3126, the Court of Appeal held that once documents are placed in Part A of the common bundle, authenticity, contents and truth are deemed admitted. This was fatal where a party later tried to challenge those documents.
  2. The High Court also relied on Low Han Kok & Anor v Yap Sien Toh & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 684; [2023] MLJU 741, where land search, title and Memorandum of Transfer placed in Part A could not later be attacked as if their contents were still disputed.
  3. The Plaintiffs relied on authorities such as Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418; Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [2020] 6 MLJ 333; Mahmood Ooyub v Li Chee Loong [2020] 6 MLJ 755; and Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers v Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd [2023] 10 CLJ 187. However, the Court found the facts here did not support the Plaintiffs’ case.

Court’s Analysis

  1. The title and Memorandum of Transfer were placed in Part A of the common bundle. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were deemed to have admitted their authenticity, contents and truth. On that ground alone, the challenge to the Defendant’s registered title faced an immediate and serious obstacle.
  2. Even on the merits, the Court found that the sale was genuine. The RM110,000.00 deposit was acknowledged. The RM195,750.50 redemption payment was proven. Although there was no direct documentary proof of the remaining RM44,249.50 cash payment, the Court inferred full payment from the surrounding facts and conduct.
  3. The Court rejected the alleged moneylending story. P1 admitted she had no dealings with the Defendant and dealt with a person called “Jeffrey”. She also accepted that Jeffrey was not the Defendant. The WhatsApp messages with Jeffrey came later and did not link the Defendant or the property sale to any illegal loan.
  4. The Court also found inconsistencies in the Plaintiffs’ evidence. The alleged loan amount changed between RM110,000.00, RM80,000.00 and other figures. Payments were made to unrelated entities. The red paint incident allegedly happened after the Defendant became the registered proprietor, making it illogical to blame him without proof.

Final Decision

  1. The Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, illegality, sham transaction, illegal moneylending, void instrument, or unlawful acquisition. Their claim was dismissed. The Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed. The Plaintiffs had to deliver vacant possession, pay late delivery interest at 8% per annum on RM350,000.00, amounting to RM76.70 per day until vacant possession, remove the caveat, and pay RM20,000.00 costs.
  2. What is truly expensive is never the legal consultation fee, but every wrong decision you make just to save it. The most dangerous part of a legal issue is not the lack of answers, but acting without professional advice, replying carelessly, signing documents blindly, making payments, agreeing to settlements, or simply delaying action. Every day lost and every wrong step taken may cost you critical evidence, the best timing, and your negotiation leverage. By the time the situation worsens, what you bring to a lawyer is often no longer the original problem, but a damaged and difficult-to-repair mess. What you pay for in a consultation is not just advice, but Wilson Kuek’s real case experience and professional judgment, helping you avoid mistakes, understand risks, and take the right first step. Do not trade today’s small savings for tomorrow’s much greater loss. Consult Wilson Kuek and his team first to understand your position before taking action; if formal legal representation is required, appoint us early. WhatsApp Wilson Kuek 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / Legal Firm 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

Source: Chow Seah Mei & Anor v Ong Ghee Hun [2026] MLJU 765. High Court, Penang. Choong Yeow Choy J. 3 March 2026.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #郭、汪律师事务所 #郭、汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #郭伟廷律师 #律师郭伟廷 #大状

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #商业诉讼律师

#专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #专打民事诉讼案 #专打民事纠纷案 #专打商业纠纷案

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #强悍的律师 #有效率的律师 #能干的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #KuekOngAssociates #lawyer Wilson Kuek #WilsonKuek #Kuek Wee Teng #KuekWeeTeng

#Klang Legal Firm #Klang Valley Legal Firm # Selangor Legal Firm #KL Legal Firm #Klang Law Firm #Klang Valley Law Firm # Selangor Law Firm #KL Law Firm

#Klang Lawyer #Klang Valley Lawyer #Selangor Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional Lawyer #Experienced Lawyer #Trustworthy Lawyer #Reliable Lawyer #Reputable Lawyer #Renowned Lawyer #Famous Lawyer #Skilled Lawyer #Credible Lawyer #Esteemed Lawyer #Notable Lawyer #Well-known Lawyer #Capable Lawyer #Effective Lawyer #Efficient Lawyer #Best Lawyer

1. 签了买卖合约后才说是借钱？高庭这样判，2. 借钱还是卖屋？一份买卖合约决定整间屋子的命运，3. 屋主称被无牌放贷骗转名，高庭不买账，4. Part A 文件有多危险？一放进去就很难反口，5. RM350,000卖屋争议：法庭如何分辨买卖和非法借贷，6. 产业被转名后才报警，法庭为何驳回原告索赔，7. 买卖合约不是随便签的：签了就可能失去房子，8. 地契已经注册到买家名下，原屋主还能推翻吗，9. 高庭提醒：非法放贷指控必须有证据，10. 说是贷款担保却签了卖屋文件，风险有多大，11. 房屋转名纠纷：欺诈、非法放贷与不可推翻地契，12. 原屋主不交吉，买家反诉成功拿迟延利息，13. RM110,000现金定金被承认，原告为何败诉，14. WhatsApp借贷信息救不了卖屋案？关键在证据连接，15. 马来西亚产业买卖：签文件前一定要看懂后果，16. Caveat不能乱放？反诉成功后被命令撤销，17. 国家土地法典第340条：注册屋主为何受保护，18. 买屋人赎回银行贷款后成功保住地契，19. 卖屋后反悔说是借贷，法庭看的是证据，20. 一宗大山脚房屋案教你买卖合约的法律威力。

1. 买卖合约伪装借贷 Sale and Purchase Agreement disguised loan，2. 无牌放贷产业转名 illegal moneylending property transfer，3. 国家土地法典第340条 NLC section 340 indefeasible title，4. Part A共同文件册 Part A common bundle admission，5. Memorandum of Transfer Form 14A，6. 马来西亚房屋转名纠纷 Malaysia property transfer dispute，7. 买卖合约无效 Contracts Act section 24 void agreement，8. Moneylenders Act 1951 unlicensed moneylender，9. registered proprietor indefeasible title，10. caveat removal property dispute，11. vacant possession counterclaim，12. late delivery interest 8% per annum，13. redemption of bank charge Maybank，14. sham transaction property sale，15. fraud in land transfer Malaysia，16. bona fide purchaser for value，17. illegal loan security document，18. RM350000 property sale dispute，19. RM110000 cash deposit acknowledged，20. Bukit Mertajam property legal dispute.

#非法贷款 #非法房贷 #非法借贷 #阿窿 #大耳窿

You May Also Be Interested In:

公司董事被股东投票撤职，就等于连工作一起丢掉？

幼教师殴打自闭症男童，判罚RM800

电视台助理主任7年前收贿1.8万，监半年罚2万

破产和欠所得税者可以搭国内飞机吗?

TNB说电表偷电, 追两年电费, 屋主可以上诉？

破产后可以出国吗? 2026破产者出境申请指南

政府宣布特假, 私人公司一定要放假吗？

Cosplay的武器法律指南