KUALA LUMPUR – Seven individuals and two companies in the cryptocurrency market are suing Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain, the Royal Malaysian Police and the government for alleged wrongful arrests, illegal detention and blatant abuse of power.
They have also named Brickfields police chief Ku Mashariman Ku Mahmood and two senior investigating officers holding “Inspector” ranks under Brickfields’ Commercial Crimes Unit – Muhamad Azamuddin Moklas and Huin Sharwinthen Nair, as defendants.
The plaintiffs, led by Kwan Kien Bin, filed a statement of claim at the high court here on July 18, detailing their ordeal with the authorities which began on June 12 with a raid on their office premises, over accusations of “scamming”.
Kwan was then the employer of the six other individuals named in the filing. They were employees of two companies owned by Kwan – Venture O2O Sdn Bhd and Evasion Marketing Sdn Bhd – which are also listed as plaintiffs.
The two companies provide cryptocurrency advisory services through the Singapore-based Cointech2u website, an artificial intelligence (AI) trading platform which provides cryptocurrency performance reports without an investment mechanism.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs said the police’s raid at 1pm on June 12 was made on their home office at Jalan Senang Ria on suspicion of scamming activities.
The plaintiffs contend that police failed to explain the scamming allegations against them and why they were being investigated.
They also said they were denied legal representation by police personnel who disallowed them the use of their handphones.
At around 5.30pm on June 12, the plaintiffs were ordered to board a police van to the Brickfields police station after their personal items such as laptops, monitors, modems, handphones and office access cards were confiscated by police.
The plaintiffs were then detained at the station’s lockup. They discovered that no complaint had been lodged against them to necessitate investigations under Section 420 of the Penal Code for cheating.
Despite this, they were brought before a magistrate by investigating officer Azamuddin for remand orders.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer argued against the remand application that the sole police report for the case was not lodged by a victim, but by an intelligence officer after the raid. The remand application was subsequently rejected by magistrate Nur Aizatul Aliaa Noor Azam.
The statement of claim also explains that the plaintiff’s counsel had argued that the raid was not preceded by the necessary investigations under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The incomplete nature of police’s investigation diaries for the case had also cast doubts on police’s claims of its attempt to identify accomplices.
Despite the magistrate’s rejection of the remand application, the police continued to detain the plaintiffs, who were informed later that night that they are now being investigated for a “new case” based on an April 2023 report by a complainant known as Kevin Wong Kwee Tong.
Investigating officer Huin the next day applied for a fresh remand order, but was similarly rejected by another magistrate, Ainur Syuhada Jefri, based on incomplete and non-compliant investigation diaries, as well as a lack of connection linking the plaintiffs to the cheating accusations.
“The police were generally on a fishing expedition by using the ‘arrest first and investigate later’ method against the plaintiffs,” stated the court document filed via Messrs Dinesh Muthal & Co.
The plaintiffs also claim to have been treated like “criminals” while under detention, asserting that they were forced to sign documents without the presence of their lawyers and repeatedly denied their right to contact their family after they were brought to the station.
“The plaintiffs were made to strip naked, change into lockup attire and detained even though they had at all material times given their full cooperation to the police.
“The plaintiffs also had to face the issue of food and water shortage. The drinking water provided had a chlorine taste (while) the food provided was undercooked and in small portions.”
The statement of claim also details the dirty and uncomfortable conditions of the lockup, while the experience of having to sleep alongside other detainees led to them developing post-traumatic stress disorder.
Following their release from police detention, the plaintiffs moved out of their home office that was raided by authorities due to the trauma and embarrassment of their damaged reputation. Three of the plaintiffs had also resigned from their jobs at Kwan’s companies.
O2O Venture and Evasion Marketing also lost about RM80,000 worth of business opportunities and had to cease operations by the end of last month after Cointech2u terminated its relationship with the companies due to a loss of communication while the plaintiffs were detained.
“The estimated loss of business income suffered by the companies between August 2024 to December 2025 is expected to be approximately RM1.36 million,” said the statement of claim.
For special damages, the plaintiffs are seeking RM225 in psychiatric treatment costs, RM83,000 in legal fees and to-be-assessed costs for the purchase of new computers and other tech devices following the seizure by police.
Besides general, severe and exemplary damages, the plaintiffs are also pursuing a declaration that their arrest on June 12 during the raid was wrongful and illegal as well as a court order compelling police to return the seized items belonging to the plaintiffs.
They also seek 5% interest on damages from the date the writ was served to the date of completed court proceedings. – August 27, 2024