Housewife loses over RM100,000 to online job scam
DUNGUN: A housewife lost RM112,206 after being duped by a syndicate offering a non-existent job.
Dungun police chief Supt Maizura Abdul Kadir said the 27-year-old victim saw a job offer advertised by a handicraft company on Facebook on May 19 and contacted the suspect on the Messenger application before providing her details for registration purposes.
'The suspect told the victim to make a payment of RM100 as an initial assignment investment. After which she was added to a WhatsApp group which offered huge commissions for every assignment,' she said in a statement today.
Maizura said the victim then made 28 cash transactions into 10 different bank accounts totalling RM112,206 using her savings before realising that she had been scammed when the suspect refused to make a refund by claiming that the company's account had been frozen.
'The victim lodged a police report yesterday and the case is being investigated under Section 420 of the Penal Code,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
13 minutes ago
- The Star
Influencer raises alarm over FB group circulating photos of underage students
PETALING JAYA: An influencer is sounding the alarm after a Facebook group was found to be circulating photos of underage students. Influencer Mekyun was shocked after being informed that her own student photos had been floated within the group, with sexually charged comments posted to it. The photos were posted on a Facebook group dubbed the "Group Budak 2 Sekolah Rendah", which had around 12,000 members. "I feel so disgusted and sickened. I am speechless. "This group is sharing photos of underage kids including photos of myself when I was still in school. "The comments are so sick. This is wrong and is a crime," she said in an Instagram posting on Tuesday (June 10). She urged the authorities to investigate the issue. In an update to her post she said that the group had been deleted from Facebook. "I myself have contacted the authorities and provided all the evidence that I had. Now investigations are being conducted," she said. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Mekyun (@mekyunn)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Court sets Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed Aug 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier Wednesday (June 11). Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words "offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In September 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words "offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a "permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making "offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective. - Bernama
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Appeals Court set Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words 'offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words 'offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a 'permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making 'offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective.
