A coordinated crackdown by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has resulted in twelve individuals facing fraud charges across three Malaysian states for their alleged involvement in submitting false claims under PERKESO's Daya Kerjaya 2.0 Programme, a government initiative designed to incentivise employers to hire workers. The charges, brought before Sessions Courts in Kelantan, Kedah and Perak, represent a significant enforcement action against systematic abuse of a labour support scheme that has become an important pillar of Malaysia's economic stimulus efforts.
In Kelantan, six individuals appeared before Kota Bharu Sessions Court Judge Dazuki Ali, charged with submitting fraudulent Employee Verification Forms to PERKESO agents with intent to mislead the organisation. The group included five company owners and a company manager, among them a father-and-son duo identified as Nik Muhammad Afiq Rifqi Nik Araman, 29, and Nik Araman Yusoff, 54. The charges span a period between May 18 and October 9, 2024, suggesting a coordinated pattern of misconduct rather than isolated incidents. Saipuddin Mohamad faced the most serious charges in this cohort with six counts, while Nur Shahalwani Ab Hamid faced four separate allegations. The remaining accused, including the father-and-son pair, each contested a single charge. All defendants maintained their innocence before the court.
The Kelantan proceedings were overseen by Deputy Public Prosecutors Mariah Omar and Asmah Che Wan from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, who presented the case on behalf of the prosecution. Bail was set at varying amounts between RM8,000 and RM14,000 for each accused, with the court scheduling September 13 for the next hearing. This differentiation in bail amounts likely reflects the varying severity of charges and the number of counts each individual faced. Nur Shahalwani notably appeared without legal representation, which may impact her defence strategy as the case progresses through the court system.
In Kedah, four individuals came before Alor Setar Sessions Court in what appears to be a multi-generational fraud case involving family members of two separate households. Hafizoh Hamid, the owner of Fuad Trading Industry Sdn Bhd, was charged with two counts of submitting false Employee Verification Forms on June 13 and October 2, 2024, at the PERKESO Monitoring and Development Branch office. Her husband, Fuad Osman, faced abetting charges related to his wife's conduct, suggesting domestic complicity in the scheme. This husband-and-wife dimension raises questions about the role of spouses in facilitating fraudulent claims and the pressure or incentives that may have motivated household participation in the scheme.
Also prosecuted in Kedah was Lee Zi Hao, a director of Westfield Retailing Sdn Bhd, who faced six counts of submitting false claims allegedly committed at Jalan KLC 4 in Kulim Landmark Central on three separate occasions: March 1, September 6 and October 25, 2024. His father, Lee Kai Fuat, was charged with five counts of abetting these offences, marking another instance where family members appear implicated in the same fraudulent enterprise. The pattern of charges across multiple submission dates suggests these were not spontaneous misrepresentations but rather deliberate, repeated attempts to extract false incentives from the programme. Judge N Priscilla Hemamalini granted bail of RM7,000 each to Hafizoh and Fuad with one surety, and RM8,000 each to Zi Hao and Kai Fuat, with a mention scheduled for September 27 and September 8 respectively.
The Perak cases involved two separate cleaning company operations and revealed allegations of document tampering alongside false claim submissions. Neoh Wooi Lee and Shareen Noordin David Noordin appeared before Ipoh Sessions Court charged with jointly submitting a fraudulent verification form on behalf of Century Super Solution, allegedly containing false information intended to deceive PERKESO agents. Shareen additionally faced nine charges related to a second company, SN Super Clean Solution, covering the period between March and September 2024. Most notably, Neoh was further charged with abetting Shareen in altering documents to contain false statements designed to deceive PERKESO personnel, suggesting a deliberate effort to conceal the fabrications through document manipulation.
The scope of allegations in the Perak cases extends across multiple victim agencies, with the charges indicating that the accused attempted to mislead three separate PERKESO agents. Both accused were released on RM8,000 bail each by Judge Ainul Sharin Mohamad, with the case returning for mention on September 10. The fact that these allegations involve document falsification rather than mere misrepresentation suggests a more sophisticated fraudulent approach than the Kelantan and Kedah cases, involving the creation of false records rather than simply submitting incomplete or misleading information.
The charges across all three cases invoke Section 18 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which carries substantial penalties under Section 24(2) of the same legislation. Conviction could result in imprisonment of up to twenty years combined with fines amounting to at least five times the sum involved in the false claims or RM10,000, whichever figure proves larger. These severe penalties underline the seriousness with which authorities are treating coordinated attempts to defraud a government employment assistance scheme, reflecting broader concerns about integrity in public subsidy programmes that have become increasingly important to Malaysia's economic policy.
The Daya Kerjaya 2.0 Programme represents a targeted government effort to support employment across Malaysia, particularly in regions facing labour challenges. The programme offers incentives to qualifying employers who hire workers from designated groups, including the long-term unemployed and workers from disadvantaged backgrounds. The systematic nature of the alleged frauds—involving multiple companies, multiple submission dates, and coordinated attempts across different states—suggests that some employers may be treating the scheme as an opportunity for easy gains rather than as a legitimate support mechanism. This pattern raises questions about the adequacy of PERKESO's verification processes and whether additional safeguards need implementation to prevent future abuse.
The involvement of company managers, directors and owners across all three state cases indicates that fraud perpetrators held decision-making authority within their organisations, making them uniquely positioned to create false employment records or fabricate verification information. This distinguishes these cases from scenarios where lower-level employees might be coerced into participating in fraudulent schemes without full understanding of the implications. The pursuit of charges against the principals rather than merely their subordinates signals that authorities view this as deliberate organisational misconduct rather than isolated individual malfeasance, potentially signalling a shift toward holding leadership accountable for systemic fraud within their enterprises.
These prosecutions arrive at a time when government subsidy programmes face increasing scrutiny regarding cost control and fraud prevention. The Daya Kerjaya scheme, while well-intentioned in its objectives of expanding employment opportunities, requires robust oversight mechanisms to distinguish genuine claims from opportunistic false submissions. The staggered court dates across the three states—September 8, 10, 13 and 27—suggest that these cases will unfold over several months, providing extended visibility into how Malaysian courts handle systematic subsidy fraud and what penalties ultimately result from conviction. The outcomes will likely inform both PERKESO's future verification protocols and employers' understanding of the serious consequences attached to fraudulent claims.
