Ex-lawyer liable for cheating elderly client in RM415,000 property deal

Ex-lawyer liable for cheating elderly client in RM415,000 property deal

Court says Na Wee Jern conducted his defence in a manner designed to escape his legal responsibilities and liabilities.

kompleks mahkamah kuala lumpur
The sessions court has ordered former lawyer Na Wee Jern to repay Tan Saw Lin the sum of RM415,000, which he misappropriated while acting for her in a property sale transaction.
KUALA LUMPUR:
The sessions court has ordered former lawyer Na Wee Jern to pay a senior citizen RM415,000, after finding that he had misappropriated funds due to her in a property sale transaction.

Judge Effandi Nazila Abdullah said Na, who ran law firm Wee Jern & Partners, had breached his fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud by failing to remit to Tan Saw Lin, 83, the sale proceeds of her Cheras apartment in 2023.

The court was told that the buyer deposited RM415,000 into the firm’s bank account in payment of the purchase price. However, Tan never received the money.

Instead, the judge said Na forged court documents and made false claims that the bank account had been frozen in an attempt to delay payment.

“The court is of the opinion that the plaintiff (Tan) has successfully proven her case as the defendant’s (Na) bad faith was clear from false representations and untrue timelines given.

“All the lies told to the plaintiff seemed to have been designed and planned in advance by the defendant, a person who was very eloquent and skilled in the intricacies in the sale and purchase of properties,” Effandi said in written grounds released recently.

The judge said he had scrutinised evidence in the form of a video recording in which Na admitted to misappropriating the funds, and WhatsApp messages offering repayment in instalments and with interest.

Effandi also found that Na had, in abuse of court process, conducted his defence in the case “in a manner designed to escape his legal responsibilities and liabilities.”

“Since the close of pleadings, the defendant has acted in mala fide (bad faith) in the defence of his case by deliberately and repeatedly disobeying the court’s pre-trial directions.

“The defendant never filed any documents and did not appear at the two-day trial to defend the case,” the judgment read.

Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.