The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has mounted a coordinated enforcement action against twelve suspects across Kelantan, Kedah, and Perak who are accused of defrauding PERKESO's Daya Kerjaya 2.0 employment incentive scheme through false documentation. All defendants pleaded not guilty to their respective charges when brought before Sessions Courts in the three states, with bail ranging from RM7,000 to RM14,000 granted to each accused pending further proceedings scheduled between early and late September 2024.
In Kelantan, the Kota Bharu Sessions Court heard cases against six individuals comprising business proprietors and a company manager. The accused included Saipuddin Mohamad, aged 47, Eadzelin Azmi, 41, Mohamad Faiz Harith Hazman, 30, Nur Shahalwani Ab Hamid, 37, and a father-and-son pair named Nik Muhammad Afiq Rifqi Nik Araman, 29, and Nik Araman Yusoff, 54. The charges centred on allegations that these individuals submitted Daya Kerjaya 2.0 Employee Verification Forms containing deliberately misleading information to PERKESO representatives, intending to deceive the organisation into approving fraudulent incentive claims. Saipuddin faced the heaviest charge count with six allegations, while Nur Shahalwani faced four counts. The remaining accused each contended with a single charge.
These Kelantan offences allegedly occurred between May 18 and October 9, 2024, with prosecution led by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Deputy Public Prosecutors Mariah Omar and Asmah Che Wan. Nur Shahalwani appeared without legal representation, whilst the other defendants retained counsel. The court set September 13 for further case management, with bail amounts ranging from RM8,000 to RM14,000 per individual.
The Kedah segment of this enforcement action involved four suspects appearing before the Alor Setar Sessions Court. Hafizoh Hamid, a 50-year-old business proprietor, faced two charges relating to submitting false Employee Verification Forms to a PERKESO Monitoring and Development Branch officer at Jalan Sultan Badlishah on June 13 and October 2, 2024. Her husband, Fuad Osman, aged 65, was charged with abetting her alleged offences. A second business operator, Lee Zi Hao, aged 35 and director of Westfield Retailing Sdn Bhd, confronted six similar charges allegedly committed on multiple dates at Kulim Landmark Central between March and October 2024. Lee's father, Lee Kai Fuat, 63, was accused of abetting five of these alleged infractions.
Judge N Priscilla Hemamalini released Hafizoh and Fuad on RM7,000 bail each with single sureties, scheduling September 27 for further proceedings. Lee Zi Hao and Lee Kai Fuat received RM8,000 bail each with the case set for mention on September 8. The Kedah prosecution was helmed by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Deputy Public Prosecutor Kamarusan Kamis, with defence representation provided by Datuk Ghazali Cha and Hari Prassaad Rao respectively.
The Perak contingent comprised two cleaning company proprietors, Neoh Wooi Lee, 50, and Shareen Noordin David Noordin, 53, both charged before Ipoh Sessions Court. These defendants allegedly collaborated to submit a false Employee Verification Form on behalf of Century Super Solution to PERKESO agents, containing deliberately inaccurate information designed to mislead. Shareen additionally faced nine charges connected to a second entity, SN Super Clean Solution, with alleged offences spanning March through September 2024. Neoh separately faced charges for allegedly abetting Shareen's submission of falsified documents to PERKESO agents across nine counts.
All Perak allegations centred on activities at Taman Sunlight, Ipoh, between late March and early September 2024. Judge Ainul Sharin Mohamad authorised RM8,000 bail for each defendant with September 10 set for further case management. The prosecution was undertaken by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officer G. Nanthini, whilst Neoh retained counsel from R. Sheshalini.
The legal framework underpinning these charges derives from Section 18 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which criminalises the submission of false particulars to government agencies for obtaining benefits. Conviction carries potential imprisonment of up to two decades alongside financial penalties calculated as whichever proves greater: five times the value of the false claim or RM10,000. This sentencing structure reflects the legislative intent to deter fraudulent claims whilst proportionately penalising offenders based on the magnitude of their alleged deception.
The Daya Kerjaya 2.0 programme represents a cornerstone of Malaysia's employment support infrastructure, designed to incentivise employers to hire and retain workers through financial encouragement mechanisms. The programme's integrity fundamentally depends upon accurate information submission from participating employers, as false claims directly divert limited government resources from legitimate beneficiaries whilst undermining public confidence in social safety net systems. These prosecutions signal intensified regulatory scrutiny following what enforcement agencies characterise as systematic abuse of the scheme through coordinated fraudulent documentation.
The coordinated nature of these charges across three geographically dispersed states suggests enforcement agencies identified either a common organised fraud network or independently perpetrated schemes following identical methodologies. The involvement of multiple company proprietors, family members, and business associates in several cases indicates either sophisticated organised criminal activity or the emergence of copycat fraud tactics within the business community. Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission resources devoted to this case represent broader institutional commitments to safeguard employment assistance programmes from fraud that fundamentally undermines their social objectives.
For Malaysian employers and the wider business community, these prosecutions carry significant implications regarding compliance obligations when engaging with government incentive schemes. The relatively modest bail amounts and swift scheduling of further proceedings suggest courts view these as serious matters meriting expedited resolution. Regional employers and Southeast Asian business operators participating in similar employment assistance programmes across the region should note the stringent enforcement approaches now operational within Malaysia's regulatory framework.
