Christina (fifth right) discussing with some of the plaintiffs before filing the suit.
KOTA KINABALU: Thirty-five investors have filed a joint civil suit at the High Court here seeking the return of their money amounting to over RM1.2 million from a peninsula-based company engaged in gold investment scheme.
The investors are also seeking a declaration from the court that the company and its director were in breach of fiduciary duty and or breach of trust.
Edward Chong Shaw Nyen and the 34 other plaintiffs filed the suit at the High Court’s registry through their counsel Christina Liew, naming the company based in Perak, and its 30-year-old director as first and second defendants respectively.
In the suit, the plaintiffs are claiming against the first and second defendants jointly and severally for the return of their purchase price in the gold investment scheme involving over RM1.2 million, a declaration that the agreements and the express and/or the implied contracts have been validly rescinded and alternatively, rescission of the agreements and the express and/or the implied contracts.
They are also seeking damages against the first and second defendants, a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to trace all trust money into the hands of the defendants or elsewhere and further declaration as to what sums in the hands of the first and second defendants are the assets of the plaintiffs.
Apart from that, the plaintiffs are also claiming all due accounts and inquiries and payment of the sum found due to the plaintiffs, interest by way of equitable relief at a commercial rate on all sums found due to the plaintiffs, costs and other relief, including all further necessary or appropriate accounts, inquiries and directions.
In their statement of claim, the first to fourth plaintiffs entered into agreements with the first defendant for the gold investment scheme on terms and conditions stated in the agreements while the fifth to 35th plaintiffs invested in the same scheme on similar terms and conditions stated in the agreements but they did not sign any formal written agreement with the first defendant.
After signing the agreements or having entered into the contracts, the plaintiffs paid for the purchase of gold under the Gold Discovery Investment scheme rates between the lowest at RM1,288.70 to the highest at RM349,160.11.
In return the first defendant issued investment certificates to the plaintiffs, which they could claim and or withdraw and or sell together with the gold investment profits after one year calculated from dates of the agreements or the contracted dates, and the process of withdrawing would take five working days to be completed.
The plaintiffs claimed that after their investment certificates matured, they wanted to redeem their investment certificates to claim for the profits yielded from their investments in the said Gold Discovery Investment scheme, which were due and payable from the first and second defendants to them.
In breach of the agreements and express or implied contracts, the first and second defendants failed and refused to pay the profits or allow the plaintiffs to withdraw their investments and refund the purchase price they had paid to the defendants.
They claimed that the defendants had made fraudulent representations in the agreements and the express and/or implied contracts as the Bank Negara Malaysia had never issued any licence to the first and second defendants or any individual or any companies, other than certain financial institutions authorized to offer any form of investment schemes or to collect deposits from the public.
Thus, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants are in breach of trust or their fiduciary duties, falsely represented to the plaintiffs that they had obtained approvals and licenses from Bank Negara Malaysia and Securities Commission Malaysia to operate the Gold Discovery Investment Scheme.
Further or in alternative, they claimed that the second defendant, in breach of trust or her fiduciary duty, misappropriated their money for her own use.
The plaintiffs aver that the defendants in breach of trust or fiduciary duty issued false investment certificates to them purported for their investments in the gold investment scheme.
The plaintiffs also aver that the second defendant having knowingly assisted in a fraudulent and dishonest design against the plaintiffs, the second defendant became constructive trustee for the plaintiffs of all money received by the first and second defendants or the value of the benefits received by them.
By reason of the matters, the plaintiffs claimed that they have suffered loss and damage.