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

1. CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
Parties in this issue are A as the accused and B as the victim. The issue is whether A can be
held liable for offence of criminal breach of trust in section 405 of the Penal Code and punishable
with 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 over
property or dominion over property and the person dishonestly convert to his own use or
dishonestly uses or disposes the property in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract or
willfully 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 the
offence. There are three elements must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be some entrustment or
dominion of property to the accused. Secondly, there must dishonestly misappropriate or convert to
his own use, or dishonestly use or dispose of the property or willfully suffers another person to do
so. 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 over
a property. The definition of entrustment is to trust a person to look after something. In the case of
Jaswantlal v State, entrustment was defined as when a person handling over a property to another
continues to be it whereby the owner is still the same. While in the case of Bahru Zaman Bin Ali v
PP, 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 control
over the property eventhough not in physically in possession over that property. In the case of Yeoh
Teck Chye v PP, the accused was a bank manager had approved a check for an overdraft facility
which he has no power to do so. The court held that although there was no entrustment but here
was a dominion on the part of the accused as he was bank manager and responsible for the money
disbursed.
Secondly, this situation falls under dishonest misappropriate or convert to his own use of
the property. As define in the case of Sohan Lal v Emperor, misappropriate is assign to wrong person
or wrong use and this act must be done dishonestly. Dishonest is defined in section 24 & 23 as
intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to other person.
Lastly, there must have dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction of law
or legal contract. Dishonest is stated in section 24 as whoever does anything with intention to cause
wrongful gain to other person, or wrongful loss to the other is said to do that dishonestly. In the case
of Mohd Adil v PP, the accused as a headmaster of a school had deducted the salary of teachers for
a society fund but no payment was made to the fund, the court held that he was liable for CBT. This
situation was illustrated in the case of Murni bin Haji Mohamed Taha v PP where the accused had
performed his duty in contradiction of the State Financial Regulations.
APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
In a conclusion, as A had fulfilled all the elements of criminal breach of trust, he may be held
liable for the crime under section 405 and may be punishable under section 406 of the penal code.