CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST Parties in this issue are A as the accused and B as the victim. The issue is whether A can beheld liable for offence of criminal breach of trust in section 405 of the Penal Code and punishablewith section 406 for his act committed towards B.LAW PRINCIPLE Criminal breach of trust is defined in section 405 as a person is entrusted in any manner overproperty or dominion over property and the person dishonestly convert to his own use ordishonestly uses or disposes the property in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract orwillfully suffers any other person, he is commit criminal breach of trust. In determining the liability of A, we must whether his act falls within the meaning of theoffence. There are three elements must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be some entrustment ordominion of property to the accused. Secondly, there must dishonestly misappropriate or convert tohis own use, or dishonestly use or dispose of the property or willfully suffers another person to doso. Lastly, dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction of law or legal contract. Firstly, the first element is that the accused must be in entrustment or is in a dominion overa property. The definition of entrustment is to trust a person to look after something. In the case ofJaswantlal v State, entrustment was defined as when a person handling over a property to anothercontinues to be it whereby the owner is still the same. While in the case of Bahru Zaman Bin Ali vPP, the accused, a clerk at parcel office had received 50 cent for a ticket but no receipt was given.The court then held that as an employee, he was entrusted by his employer to receive the money. Dominion in the other hand is a control over the property. The accused must have controlover the property eventhough not in physically in possession over that property. In the case of YeohTeck Chye v PP, the accused was a bank manager had approved a check for an overdraft facilitywhich he has no power to do so. The court held that although there was no entrustment but herewas a dominion on the part of the accused as he was bank manager and responsible for the moneydisbursed. Secondly, this situation falls under dishonest misappropriate or convert to his own use ofthe property. As define in the case of Sohan Lal v Emperor, misappropriate is assign to wrong personor wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined in section 24 & 23 asintention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to other person. Lastly, there must have dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction of lawor legal contract. Dishonest is stated in section 24 as whoever does anything with intention to causewrongful gain to other person, or wrongful loss to the other is said to do that dishonestly. In the caseof Mohd Adil v PP, the accused as a headmaster of a school had deducted the salary of teachers fora society fund but no payment was made to the fund, the court held that he was liable for CBT. Thissituation was illustrated in the case of Murni bin Haji Mohamed Taha v PP where the accused hadperformed his duty in contradiction of the State Financial Regulations.APPLICATIONCONCLUSION In a conclusion, as A had fulfilled all the elements of criminal breach of trust, he may be heldliable for the crime under section 405 and may be punishable under section 406 of the penal code.