Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

24/03/2026

Selamat Hari Polis kepada semua rakan-rakan PDRM. 🫡 Terima kasih atas segala jasa baik serta pengorbanan yang telah dicurahkan demi menjamin keselamatan dan kedaulatan negara. Anda semua merupakan wira negara, dan keamanan serta kemajuan negara hari ini adalah hasil daripada dedikasi dan komitmen anda semua. 💙💙💙

Yang Ikhlas,
TETUAN TK PANG

19/03/2026

我係 TK Pang，馬來西亞西馬高等法院嘅執業律師（Advocate & Solicitor），喺馬來西亞已有超過十年嘅活躍法律執業經驗。我的專業範疇主要係 刑事法律，包括 刑事辯護 同 源自刑事案件嘅民事訴訟，特別專注於 侵權索償。

喺我嘅職業生涯中，我成功代表咗唔同類型嘅客戶，處理過廣泛嘅刑事案件，包括：

危險毒品罪行 – 喺多宗案件中為客戶辯護，涉及《危險毒品法案》第 39B、6B、39A(1)、39A(2)、12 同 15 條。

商業及金融罪行 – 處理涉及《刑事法》第 420 條、AMLA 法案、信用卡詐騙（CBT）、放債及偽造等案件。

一般刑事案件 – 代表客戶處理 謀殺、綁架、搶劫、盜竊、過失致死以及故意傷害 等案件。

性罪行 – 處理 強姦同猥褻 案件。

貪污及不當行為 – 處理《反貪污委員會法案》第 16 條、第 17 條案件，以及《刑事法》第 165 條案件。

作為訴訟律師，我明白 民事訴訟往往無可避免，尤其喺一個存在不公嘅社會。我的民事業務涵蓋廣泛嘅 侵權索償，包括針對公眾機構嘅 疏忽、侵佔同失職，以及 誹謗訴訟、人身傷害索償、遺產糾紛、債務追討、家庭法律事務同強制執行程序。我特別關注 刑事與民事交叉嘅案件。

我能夠用 英語、馬來語、廣東話同普通話 與客戶有效溝通，確保喺不同文化同法律背景下保持專業嘅交流。

多年來，我成功處理咗馬來西亞嘅眾多訴訟案件，當中好多都取得咗 有利結果。部分已公開報告嘅案例包括：

[2017] MLJU 871；[2017] MLRHU 654；[2017] MLRHU 1570；[2017] 1 LNS 2122；[2017] CLJU 2122；[2018] AMEJ 1902；[2018] MLJU 2200；[2018] 8 AMR 479；[2018] MLRHU 2076；[2021] MLJU 1462；[2021] CLJU 1222；[2021] 1 LNS 1222；[2021] MLRHU 1100；[2023] MLJU 3161；[2023] MLRSU 357；[2024] CLJU 616；[2024] MLJU 699；[2024] MLRHU 490；[2024] MLJU 3365；[2024] MLRHU 2459；[2024] PILRU 71；[2024] MLJU 3747；[2024] MLRSU 439；[2024] MLRSU 458；[2024] MLRHU 2970；[2025] MLJU 1609；[2025] MLRSU 246；[2025] MLRHU 1930；[2025] MLRHU 2678。

歡迎查閱呢啲案例，以進一步了解我嘅 執業經驗同喺訴訟領域嘅良好紀錄。
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am TK Pang, an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya (West Malaysia), with over a decade of active legal practice in Malaysia. My primary focus is criminal law, including criminal defence and civil litigation arising from criminal matters, with a particular emphasis on tortious claims.

Throughout my career, I have successfully represented a broad spectrum of clients across a wide range of criminal cases, including:

Dangerous drugs offences – Defended clients in numerous cases under Sections 39B, 6B, 39A(1), 39A(2), 12, and 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Commercial and financial crimes – Defended clients in cases involving Section 420, AMLA offences, CBT, moneylending, and forgery.
General crimes – Represented clients in matters such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, theft, ATIPSOM, negligence causing death, and voluntarily causing hurt.
Sexual offences – Handled cases of r**e and molestation.
Corruption and misconduct – Acted in cases under Sections 16 and 17 of the MACC Act, as well as Section 165 of the Penal Code.

As a litigator, I recognize that civil litigation is often inevitable, particularly in a world where unfairness exists. My civil practice encompasses a wide range of tortious claims, including negligence, conversion, and misfeasance against public authorities, as well as defamation suits, personal injury claims, estate disputes, debt recovery, family-related legal matters and enforcement proceedings. I am particularly interested in cases where criminal law intersects with civil matters.

I am able to communicate effectively in English, Bahasa Melayu, Cantonese, and Mandarin, ensuring clear and professional interaction across cultural and legal contexts.

Over the years, I have successfully handled numerous litigation matters in Malaysia, many of which have resulted in favorable outcomes. Notable reported cases include:

[2017] MLJU 871; [2017] MLRHU 654; [2017] MLRHU 1570; [2017] 1 LNS 2122; [2017] CLJU 2122; [2018] AMEJ 1902; [2018] MLJU 2200; [2018] 8 AMR 479; [2018] MLRHU 2076; [2021] MLJU 1462; [2021] CLJU 1222; [2021] 1 LNS 1222; [2021] MLRHU 1100; [2023] MLJU 3161; [2023] MLRSU 357; [2024] CLJU 616; [2024] MLJU 699; [2024] MLRHU 490; [2024] MLJU 3365; [2024] MLRHU 2459; [2024] PILRU 71; [2024] MLJU 3747; [2024] MLRSU 439; [2024] MLRSU 458; [2024] MLRHU 2970; [2025] MLJU 1609; [2025] MLRSU 246; [2025] MLRHU 1930; [2025] MLRHU 2678.

You are welcome to explore these cases for further insight into my experience and proven track record in litigation.

TK Pang
Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

14/03/2026

一宗原本可判最高20年监禁的走私移民案，数年后出现关键转折。2022年，一名年仅18岁的男子因涉嫌驾驶休旅车非法运送25名缅甸籍人士而被控。如今在控方同意改以刑罚较轻的交替控状提控下认罪，最终被判监禁3年及罚款1万令吉。 值得留意的是，被告在其代表律师冯德杰 (Pang Tek Kit / TK Pang) 援引刑事程序法典第282(d)条文（每一项监禁刑罚，自判决作出之日起生效，除非法庭另有指示）提出申请下，法庭批准被告在与家人欢庆开斋节后，才在3月31日入狱服刑。 这名现年22岁的被告阿兹米于2022年8月2日被警方逮捕。他在被当局扣押571天后，在2024年2月23日以2万令吉保外候审。虽然刑期从今年3月31日算起，但被告此前被扣押的天数（571天）将获得扣除，也意味着被告只需服刑剩余的大约1年5个月刑期。
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Satu kes penyeludupan migran yang pada asalnya membawa hukuman maksimum 20 tahun penjara telah mengalami perkembangan penting beberapa tahun kemudian. Pada tahun 2022, seorang lelaki berusia 18 tahun telah didakwa kerana didakwa memandu sebuah kenderaan pelbagai guna (MPV) bagi mengangkut secara haram 25 orang warga Myanmar.

Kini, selepas pihak pendakwaan bersetuju untuk meminda pertuduhan kepada pertuduhan alternatif yang lebih ringan, tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah dan akhirnya dijatuhi hukuman penjara tiga tahun serta denda RM10,000.

Perlu diperhatikan bahawa atas permohonan peguam bela tertuduh, Encik Pang Tek Kit (TK Pang), yang merujuk kepada seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (yang memperuntukkan bahawa setiap hukuman penjara hendaklah berkuat kuasa dari tarikh hukuman dijatuhkan melainkan mahkamah memerintahkan sebaliknya), mahkamah membenarkan tertuduh memulakan hukuman penjara hanya selepas menyambut Hari Raya bersama keluarganya, iaitu bermula pada 31 Mac.

Tertuduh yang kini berusia 22 tahun, iaitu Azmi, telah ditangkap oleh pihak polis pada 2 Ogos 2022. Selepas ditahan oleh pihak berkuasa selama 571 hari, beliau telah dibebaskan dengan jaminan RM20,000 pada 23 Februari 2024.

Walaupun hukuman penjara tersebut bermula pada 31 Mac tahun ini, tempoh 571 hari yang telah dilalui dalam tahanan akan diambil kira sebagai potongan hukuman, yang bermaksud tertuduh hanya perlu menjalani baki hukuman penjara kira-kira satu tahun lima bulan sahaja.

Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

14/03/2026

A migrant smuggling case that originally carried a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment has taken a significant turn several years later. In 2022, an 18-year-old man was charged for allegedly driving a multipurpose vehicle (MPV) to illegally transport 25 Myanmar nationals.

Now, after the prosecution agreed to amend the charge to a lesser alternative charge, the accused pleaded guilty and was ultimately sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000.

Notably, upon an application by the defence counsel, Mr. Pang Tek Kit (TK Pang), who relied on section 282(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (which provides that every term of imprisonment shall commence from the date of sentence unless the court directs otherwise), the court allowed the accused to begin serving his sentence only after celebrating Hari Raya with his family, with imprisonment commencing on 31 March.

The accused, Azmi, now aged 22, was arrested by the police on 2 August 2022. After being detained by the authorities for 571 days, he was released on bail of RM20,000 on 23 February 2024.

Although the sentence formally commences on 31 March this year, the 571 days previously spent in custody will be credited towards his sentence, meaning the accused will only need to serve approximately one year and five months of the remaining imprisonment term.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Satu kes penyeludupan migran yang pada asalnya membawa hukuman maksimum 20 tahun penjara telah mengalami perkembangan penting beberapa tahun kemudian. Pada tahun 2022, seorang lelaki berusia 18 tahun telah didakwa kerana didakwa memandu sebuah kenderaan pelbagai guna (MPV) bagi mengangkut secara haram 25 orang warga Myanmar.

Kini, selepas pihak pendakwaan bersetuju untuk meminda pertuduhan kepada pertuduhan alternatif yang lebih ringan, tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah dan akhirnya dijatuhi hukuman penjara tiga tahun serta denda RM10,000.

Perlu diperhatikan bahawa atas permohonan peguam bela tertuduh, Encik Pang Tek Kit (TK Pang), yang merujuk kepada seksyen 282(d) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (yang memperuntukkan bahawa setiap hukuman penjara hendaklah berkuat kuasa dari tarikh hukuman dijatuhkan melainkan mahkamah memerintahkan sebaliknya), mahkamah membenarkan tertuduh memulakan hukuman penjara hanya selepas menyambut Hari Raya bersama keluarganya, iaitu bermula pada 31 Mac.

Tertuduh yang kini berusia 22 tahun, iaitu Azmi, telah ditangkap oleh pihak polis pada 2 Ogos 2022. Selepas ditahan oleh pihak berkuasa selama 571 hari, beliau telah dibebaskan dengan jaminan RM20,000 pada 23 Februari 2024.

Walaupun hukuman penjara tersebut bermula pada 31 Mac tahun ini, tempoh 571 hari yang telah dilalui dalam tahanan akan diambil kira sebagai potongan hukuman, yang bermaksud tertuduh hanya perlu menjalani baki hukuman penjara kira-kira satu tahun lima bulan sahaja.

https://www.sinchew.com.my/news/20260303/nation/7314478

Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

（吉隆坡3日讯）一宗原本可判最高20年监禁的走私移民案，数年后出现关键转折，被告不但在交替控状下判监禁3年及罚款1万令吉，法庭也批准被告与家人共度开斋节后才入狱服刑。据了解，这也是在刑事程序法典第282(d)条文下....

02/03/2026

Tindakan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) yang memaksa suspek-suspek memakai baju lokap SPRM adalah tidak wajar dan mencerminkan tahap profesionalisme yang rendah dalam hal ini.

Walaupun dalam kes reman polis, amalan lazimnya tidak mengarak atau mempamerkan suspek kepada umum, apatah lagi membenarkan pihak media mengambil gambar semata-mata bagi tujuan publisiti atau untuk menonjolkan mana-mana individu tertentu. Tindakan sedemikian adalah tidak berpatutan dan tidak seharusnya digalakkan.

Lebih penting lagi, perbuatan tersebut menjejaskan serta bercanggah dengan prinsip asas anggapan tidak bersalah (presumption of innocence) yang menjadi tunjang dalam sistem keadilan jenayah.

The conduct of Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) in compelling suspects to wear SPRM lock-up shirt is unbefitting and reflects a troubling lack of professionalism. Even in cases involving police remand, it is not the usual practice to parade a suspect before the public, much less to allow members of the media to take photographs for the purpose of generating publicity or enhancing the image of any particular individual. Such actions are improper and ought not to be condoned. More fundamentally, they erode and are wholly inconsistent with the cardinal principle of the presumption of innocence.

Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

22/01/2026

UNDEFEATED LAWYERS DO NOT EXIST

A few days ago, I heard someone say that a certain lawyer, let’s call him XYZ, has never lost a case. It is worth pausing to ask how far such a statement can truly be said to be accurate. More often than not, no one in the world can win cases all the time. Litigation, by its very nature, is uncertain. If anyone proclaims that a particular lawyer has never lost a case, that claim is, at best, misleading and, at worst, plainly untrue.

The reasons are simple.

First, no lawyer controls all the variables in a case. Judges differ, facts evolve, witnesses falter, and the law itself is open to interpretation.

Second, many cases turn not on brilliance or effort, but on evidence, sometimes evidence that is incomplete, unfavourable, or entirely beyond counsel’s control.

Third, experienced lawyers often take on difficult, unpopular, or seemingly hopeless cases. XYZ who claims never to have lost may simply be one who avoids hard cases, rather than one who is truly competent.

In truth, losing a case does not define a lawyer’s ability; refusing to fight challenging cases does. The mark of a good lawyer is not an unbroken record, but the courage to stand for a client even when the odds are poor, and the honesty to acknowledge that in law, as in life, no one wins every battle.

Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

23/12/2025

HOUSE ARREST IS NONSENSE

1. It weakens punishment
Punishment is supposed to show that a crime has serious consequences. Staying at home, in familiar and comfortable surroundings, does not feel like real punishment. When a sentence feels like a mild inconvenience, it fails to deter crime and weakens public trust in the justice system.

2. It is unfair and unequal
House arrest mainly benefits people who have good homes and financial stability. Those without proper housing cannot qualify and are more likely to be sent to prison. This creates a system where the rich stay at home while the poor go to jail, which goes against the idea of equal justice.

3. It is hard to enforce
House arrest depends heavily on the offender following the rules. Electronic tags and checks can be avoided, and violations are not always detected quickly. A punishment that relies on trust instead of strict supervision is weak and ineffective.

4. It downplays harm to victims
For serious crimes, house arrest sends the wrong message to victims. Seeing an offender remain at home suggests the offence was not serious. This can hurt victims further and makes the court’s response look weak.

5. It damages respect for the law
When house arrest is used too often, punishment starts to look soft and inconsistent. The public may lose confidence in the justice system. A system that appears lenient without good reason undermines respect for the rule of law.

In summary, the authorities should consider the broader implications and where this approach may ultimately lead.

Regards,
Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

30/11/2025

28A(8) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC)

1. Section 28A(8) CPC is, with respect, highly problematic. It is difficult to understand the rationale behind creating such an exception.

2. Access to legal representation should be either granted or withheld based on clear and objective criteria, not on broad discretionary grounds.

3. The provision introduces exceptions such as the risk of concealment, fabrication or destruction of evidence, intimidation of a witness, the need to record an “urgent” statement, or the possibility of accomplices taking steps to evade arrest.

4. In practice, these grounds are so vaguely framed that they can be invoked in almost any situation.

5. The concern is that investigating officers may routinely rely on these exceptions whenever a lawyer is present, without providing any concrete proof.

6. Worse still, the decision only requires authorisation from an officer of DSP rank, effectively allowing a single signature to deprive a suspect of fundamental legal rights.

7. In effect, the provision undermines the very right to legal representation that the section 28A purports to protect.

Regards,
Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

28/11/2025

FURTHER OPINION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) REFORM

1. The reform to the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) should introduce a provision that expressly guarantees the constitutional rights to obtain legal representation, to consult a lawyer, and to have counsel present during statement-taking — with ENFORCEABLE PENALTIES FOR ANY BREACH OR NON-COMPLIANCE.

2. Section 28A of the CPC currently provides, among others, that:

• s.28A(1): A person arrested without a warrant shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest.

• s.28A(2)-(7): An arrested person shall be allowed to communicate and consult with a legal practitioner of his choice.

3. Although these rights exist in law, their violation currently carries NO real consequence.

4. A good and conscientious lawyer is essential to this framework, ensuring transparency, accountability, and the consistent upholding of the rule of law.

Regards,
Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所

16/11/2025

Kebiasaan pangkat penguasa-penguasa dalam SPRM/MACC ialah Penguasa dan Penguasa Kanan.

Penguasa Kanan: Singkatan PsK, gred P44.
Penguasa: Singkatan Ps, gred P41

13/11/2025

On 22 July 2024, the Sessions Court in Petaling Jaya ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, Mr. Teo Tian Hok, in a civil suit against his neighbour, Mr. Yong Kwee Sing, awarding a total of RM253,465.60 in damages for assault and battery.

Subsequently, on 9 October 2025, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal with costs of RM3,000, affirming that the Sessions Court’s findings on both liability and quantum were correct.

Mr. TK Pang (Pang Tek Kit) of Messrs. TK Pang represented the Plaintiff/Respondent throughout the entire trial and appellate proceedings, culminating in this successful and satisfactory outcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pada 22 Julai 2024, Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya telah memutuskan memihak kepada Plaintif, Encik Teo Tian Hok, dalam satu tindakan sivil terhadap jirannya, Encik Yong Kwee Sing, dengan mengarahkan bayaran ganti rugi berjumlah RM253,465.60 bagi kes serangan dan kecederaan (assault and battery).

Kemudiannya, pada 9 Oktober 2025, Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam telah menolak rayuan yang difailkan oleh Defendan dengan kos sebanyak RM3,000, serta mengesahkan bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen telah membuat keputusan yang betul dari segi liabiliti dan kuantum.

Encik TK Pang (Pang Tek Kit) daripada Tetuan TK Pang telah mewakili Plaintif/Responden sepanjang perbicaraan dan prosiding rayuan tersebut sehingga mencapai keputusan yang memuaskan ini.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
在2024年7月22日，八打灵再也地庭（Sessions Court, Petaling Jaya）裁定原告张天福（Teo Tian Hok 先生）胜诉，并判令其邻居杨贵成（Yong Kwee Sing 先生）须赔偿总额RM253,465.60，以弥补因袭击和伤害（assault and battery）所造成的损失。

随后在2025年10月9日，沙亚南高庭（High Court, Shah Alam）驳回了被告的上诉，并判令上诉费用为RM3,000。高庭确认地庭在责任与赔偿数额（liability and quantum）方面的判决均属正确。

本案由冯德杰律师（TK Pang / Pang Tek Kit）代表原告/答辩人出庭，贯穿整个审讯及上诉程序，最终取得圆满成果。

Messrs. TK Pang / 冯德杰律师事务所