18 foreigners among 20 women arrested in prostitution crackdown
During the 6.30pm raids carried out by Bukit Aman's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on a hotel and an apartment, the raiding team also arrested a 44-year-old man who acted as the minder for the women.
Bukit Aman CID acting director Datuk Fadil Marsus said the raids by the department's D7 Anti-Vice Division were conducted following a public tip-off on the activities at the two premises.
"The women arrested comprised two locals aged 26 and 37, eight Chinese nationals, three from Mongolia, three from Uzbekistan, and one each from Japan, Russia, Vietnam and Laos," he said.
He added that during the raids, police also seized 59 condoms, 21 bath towels, 21 mobile phones, 16 access cards and RM4,470 in cash, believed to be proceeds from prostitution activities.
Fadil said the prostitution syndicate's modus operandi was to advertise sexual services through websites featuring photos of women in provocative attire.
"These online listings also included the packages and prices for each service, which ranged between RM400 and RM1,000 per session, with payments made directly to the women.
"The syndicate operated from hotel rooms on different floors and also rented apartment units in an attempt to evade detection by the authorities," he said.
He said clients seeking services from the women would make bookings via phone numbers listed on the websites. Once arrangements were confirmed, they would be provided with the location and room number upon arrival.
A total of 16 foreign women have been remanded for 14 days under the Immigration Act until July 30, while two local women and one each from Laos and Vietnam have been remanded for one day.
The man has been remanded for three days.
The case is being investigated under Section 372B of the Penal Code, Section 55B and Section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, and Regulation 39(b) of the Immigration Regulations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Police warn public over AI-generated fake video of King offering financial aid
KUALA LUMPUR: Police have warned the public against falling for a fake video circulating on social media that features a manipulated image of His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, purportedly announcing financial aid for Malaysians. In a statement today, Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa said the 32-second video, uploaded to the TikTok account @datukzulkarnain77, falsely depicts the King delivering a speech urging individuals in financial distress to contact a person identified as Datuk Zulkarnain. "The video is fake and is believed to have been produced using artificial intelligence (AI) technology," he said. Rusdi said a police report had been lodged, and an investigation was ongoing under Section 419 of the Penal Code for impersonation and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for improper use of network facilities. He reminded the public not to be duped by the content and to avoid contacting the individual named in the video. "This is an attempt to deceive the public. We advise everyone to be cautious and not to share or act on misleading content involving the Royal Institution," he said. Police also urged social media users to report suspicious content and to verify the authenticity of any video involving national figures or offers of financial assistance.
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Businessman loses RM1.5mil to online investment scam
SEREMBAN: Another victim has fallen prey to a non-existent online investment scam, losing nearly RM1.5mil after being promised unusually high returns. Nilai OCPD Supt Abdul Malik Hasim said the victim, a businessman in his 50s, lodged a report on Monday (July 21) after realising that he had been duped. "The victim, in his report, said that he had been contacted by an individual in late April asking if he was keen to invest in an online investment scheme. "The victim, after being told that the returns were unusually high, agreed to download an application on his mobile phone so he could invest," he said in a statement. Supt Abdul Malik said the victim then transferred the cash into seven bank accounts through 15 transactions. He said the victim only realised that he had been conned when he was unable to withdraw his profits. "He was told that he would have to make additional payments if he wished to do so," he said, adding that the victim lodged a report at the Pantai station. The case is being investigated under Section 420 of the Penal Code for cheating. He advised the public to always check with official sources such as Bank Negara before investing in any scheme, especially those that promise unusually high returns. The public can also call the Commercial Crime Investigation Department Scam Response Centre at 03-2610 1559 or 03-2610 1599, he added.
Rakyat Post
4 hours ago
- Rakyat Post
Do You Own Images You Paid A Photographer To Take? Here's What We Know
Subscribe to our FREE When you hire a professional photographer, there tends to be some confusion about ownership over the photos. Logically, most people would think that the photos would belong to the client, who paid for the service. However, there is a fine line between the law and ethics when it comes to photo ownership and what the photos are used for. For example, a gold investment agent shared on Threads about how she confronted a photographer she hired after he uploaded a photo of her without her consent, even after she politely asked him not to. She also claimed that the photographer accused her of mistreating him and blocked her. 'I feel that it was I who was mistreated. I've paid RM1,500 but the results were not up to the standards that were promised to me as the client,' she said in her post. In an earlier post, she mentioned that she has worked with other photographers in the past, and that many of them sought her consent first before sharing the photos they took as part of their portfolio. Although the photographer did take the photos offline as she had asked, he advised her to draft an agreement so as to not make other photographers feel mistreated in the future. According to law, photographers own the pictures they take by default The gold agent said in one of her posts on the matter that she believes photos she paid for are fully owned by her as a client. But how much of this is true? According to Section 26 of the What this means in practice is the photographer owns all copyrights of the images they take, even if the photos are commissioned or paid for unless there is a contract that explicitly states a transfer of rights. There are a few exceptions though, according to Section 26(2): When a photographer is an employee of a company, the copyright belongs to the employer. Relating to commissioned works, copyright can be transferred to the client if it was agreed in a contract. Photographers need to consider ethical practices too, or risk facing legal consequences Image: Adobe Stock Now that we got the ownership parts out of the way, there is also the question of ethics on the photographer's side. While it's true that the photos are owned by the photographer unless stated otherwise in a mutually agreed contract, common decency also needs to be considered when a photo involves the privacy of an individual. If not careful, career photographers could find themselves embroiled in a legal battle should the prosecutor decide to invoke the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA), Section 509 of the Penal Code, or the Communications & Multimedia Act. Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) Image: Data Protection Outsourcing Sdn Bhd The So for example, your company uses a photo of someone for your business without their consent, they can legally demand its deletion under PDPA. However, photos that are taken informally (without any commercial links) are not covered under the PDPA. Privacy, harassment, and other laws Photographers must also be careful about sharing images that may intrude another person's modesty (e.g. intimate or embarrasing photos). Section 509 of the Penal Code criminalises exposure of one's Meanwhile, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act prohibits online content that is offensive, abusive, harassing, or menacing. Posting someone's image to annoy, harass, or shame them might fall under this, even in group chats. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
