Scribd
Upload
27 views

Week 5 Self-Directed Learning

The document discusses criminal law topics including property offenses in Malaysia and the elements of extortion. It provides cases for discussion and asks students to analyze statements about implied threats and the definition of injury in extortion cases. A hypothetical scenario is presented involving a cashier taking money and a security guard demanding money in exchange for keeping it a secret.

Uploaded by

Harith Hakim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views

Week 5 Self-Directed Learning

The document discusses criminal law topics including property offenses in Malaysia and the elements of extortion. It provides cases for discussion and asks students to analyze statements about implied threats and the definition of injury in extortion cases. A hypothetical scenario is presented involving a cashier taking money and a security guard demanding money in exchange for keeping it a secret.

Uploaded by

Harith Hakim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMINAL LAW II – LAW61604

PRE-RECORDED ENHANCED SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING (ESDL)

WEEK 5  Watch video embedded in the Lecture slide 4


 Familiarise with the elements of property offences in Malaysia

Read the following cases:

 Week 5 Cases

Questions for Discussion

1. Discuss whether implied threats can be construed as threats of injury


under s 383 of the Penal Code.

2. “The offence of extortion is defined in section 383 of the Penal Code. It


will be seen that an essential part of the offence is putting a person in fear of
“injury”. In turn, “injury” is defined in section 44 of the same Code. These
“injury” is harm illegally caused. It appears to me to follow from this that
the exercise of legal power, however done, can never constitute harm.”
Per Murray Aynsley CJ in Vincent Lee v. R (1949) 15 MLJ 296.

Critically discuss the above statement in the light of the requirements of the
offence of extortion as found in section 383. Support your discussion with
relevant authorities.

3. Illustrate the differences between offence under section 378 and section
383 of the Penal Code.
(5 marks)

4. Aminah is a cashier at the Mega Hypermarket. She is in the habit of


taking sweets and chocolates from the shelves near the counter. Every time
her friend Chandra advised her, she turned a deaf ear saying that their boss
would not notice or even mind her act. One day Mansor, the security guard
at the Mega Hypermarket, saw Aminah taking a Mars chocolate bar and ate
it. He confronted Aminah and told her that he knew what Aminah had done
and that can put her in trouble. He said, “I can report you to the boss and you
can say goodbye to your job. However, this can be our little secret!!”
Mansor wanted RM50 from Aminah for his lunch. Not having any money on
her, Aminah took RM50 from the till. She intended to replace the
money later and hoped that no one knows about what had
happened.

are the offence/s that may have been committed by the parties concerned?
What are your takeaway points?

You might also like