Bank boleh guna penyata akaun janaan komputer tuntut pinjaman tertunggak

The Court of Appeal has ruled that computer-generated account statements can be accepted as evidence in a trial, provided that a bank official confirms the records were generated by a computer used in regular business operations. In Putrajaya, the bank can use computer-generated statements as proof of a high-value loan in court, provided a bank official confirms the records were generated by a computer used in regular business operations.

The Court of Appeal explained this on today, overturning a High Court decision that rejected a bank's claim for a refund of RM689,207 from a borrower and two personal guarantors. Judge Wong Kian Kheong, delivering the judgment, said the High Court erred when it ignored the bank's financial statement and computer-generated statement.

Wong, sitting with Judges Faizah Jamaludin and Leonard David Shim, said the documents can be accepted as evidence under Section 90A(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 because the certificate has been signed and stamped by a bank official. The relevant official also confirmed that the computer in question functioned properly, while the defendant did not present any evidence to contradict his statement.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal said the High Court was wrong when it rejected the documents as evidence. The dispute arose from two RM15 million loan facilities provided by SME Bank to Panji Timor Holdings Sdn Bhd for a hotel project in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. After the borrower failed to pay, the bank and its designated managers sold the land and unfinished hotel for RM15 million in 2014.

SMEB Asset Management Sdn Bhd, which took over the bank's business and financing contracts, then filed a lawsuit seeking to recover the remaining debt. Panji Timor filed a counterclaim claiming that the sale generated an estimated RM3.92 million in profit, which should have been returned to it. The Court of Appeal allowed the bank's appeal against the High Court's decision on the substantive issue and ordered the three defendants to pay RM689,207 jointly and severally.

The court also rejected the counterclaim. However, the court dismissed the bank's individual appeals against the High Court's decision not to allow it to appeal its own statement of claim.