(6) extortion

2,436 views
2,211 views

Published on

disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,436
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
125
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

(6) extortion

  1. 1. EXTORTION The parties in this issue are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. The issue is whether Amay be held liable for committing extortion as defined under section 383 and punishable undersection 384 for the act committed to B.LAW PRINCIPLE Section 383 defined extortion as to put a person or any person into fear of injury andthereby inducing the delivery of property or valuable security. STATE ILLUSTRATION (a) OF SECTION383 The first element needs to be fulfilled is there must be fear of injury inducing the delivery ofthe property. Injury as in section 44 defined as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person inbody, mind, reputation or property. The, illegal was define in section 43 as everything which is anoffence or which is prohibited by law. To establish fear of injury, the victim must be put in fear ofinjury, the fear must be present in the victim’s mind when the delivery of property was made andthe offender must intend to cause the delivery of the property. The second element is that the act is amount to extortion is threat. A threat may be expressor implied in which its absence will not amounts to extortion.CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASES: • Beh Tuck Seng v R – implied threat to destroy the stall of hawker to collect protection money – convicted of extortion. • Mohd Taufik v PP – no extortion for threat to file a civil action against the victim. • Vincent Lee v Rex – chandu – special constable- doesn’t amount to injury – no extortion. • Abu Hasan v PP – custom officer – exercise legal power cannot cause harm (section 44). • Ling Hai Kuat v PP – police traffic – check for hawker license – convicted. • Kang Siew Chong v PP – objection of threat – extract money = abuse of power = illegal = injury =extortion. The last element is there must be actual delivery of possession of the property by the personthat was put in fear and the offence is not complete if there is no delivery of property. As illustratedin the case of Arjan Singh v PP, the court held that the undelivered letters containing threats did notamount to extortion.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for committing extortion as defined under section 383and punishable under section 384 for the act committed to B.

×