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

1. EXTORTION
The parties in this issue are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. The issue is whether A
may be held liable for committing extortion as defined under section 383 and punishable under
section 384 for the act committed to B.
LAW PRINCIPLE
Section 383 defined extortion as to put a person or any person into fear of injury and
thereby inducing the delivery of property or valuable security. STATE ILLUSTRATION (a) OF SECTION
383
The first element needs to be fulfilled is there must be fear of injury inducing the delivery of
the property. Injury as in section 44 defined as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in
body, mind, reputation or property. The, illegal was define in section 43 as everything which is an
offence or which is prohibited by law. To establish fear of injury, the victim must be put in fear of
injury, the fear must be present in the victim’s mind when the delivery of property was made and
the offender must intend to cause the delivery of the property.
The second element is that the act is amount to extortion is threat. A threat may be express
or implied in which its absence will not amounts to extortion.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASES:
• Beh Tuck Seng v R – implied threat to destroy the stall of hawker to collect protection
money – convicted of extortion.
• Mohd Taufik v PP – no extortion for threat to file a civil action against the victim.
• Vincent Lee v Rex – chandu – special constable- doesn’t amount to injury – no extortion.
• Abu Hasan v PP – custom officer – exercise legal power cannot cause harm (section 44).
• Ling Hai Kuat v PP – police traffic – check for hawker license – convicted.
• Kang Siew Chong v PP – objection of threat – extract money = abuse of power = illegal =
injury =extortion.
The last element is there must be actual delivery of possession of the property by the person
that was put in fear and the offence is not complete if there is no delivery of property. As illustrated
in the case of Arjan Singh v PP, the court held that the undelivered letters containing threats did not
amount to extortion.
APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, A may be held liable for committing extortion as defined under section 383
and punishable under section 384 for the act committed to B.