The Case That Every Business Owner Should Study This Week
You may have signed up for PERKESO incentives with the best of intentions — hire a few extra workers, get a little government support, watch the business grow. Then you read the news: 17 people, including company directors and even an actress, have been charged in courts across Malaysia over allegedly fake claims under PERKESO’s Daya Kerjaya 2.0 Programme. Suddenly, that incentive application you signed a year ago doesn’t feel so routine.
The accused aren’t faceless corporations. They are owners of enterprises like a food court, a trading company, and an engineering firm — the kind of businesses you see in your own neighbourhood. And the charges are built on documents you probably handle every month: employee verification forms.
Before you brush this off as a case of “people who deserved it,” consider this: in Malaysia, when incentive claims go wrong, the person held accountable is usually the one who signed — and in an SME, that’s almost always the owner.
TL;DR
- Seventeen individuals — directors, business owners and an actress — pleaded not guilty to charges involving false claims under PERKESO’s Daya Kerjaya 2.0 programme.
- The charges were filed under Section 18 of the MACC Act 2009, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
- Offences allegedly took place in 2024, with charges coming about two years later — meaning past claims are still vulnerable to scrutiny.
What This Means
Daya Kerjaya 2.0 is a PERKESO programme that supports employers who hire specific groups such as disabled individuals, ex-convicts, or long-term jobseekers. The application process involves submitting Employee Verification Forms that confirm each person is genuinely in your workforce. In theory, it’s an honest exchange: you provide jobs, the government shares the burden with you. In practice, this case shows what happens when the verification forms don’t match reality.
According to the charges, company directors submitted false forms to claim incentives they weren’t entitled to. In Kuala Lumpur, actress Farah Wahida Zainuddin, as director of Focal Reality Entertainment, faced four charges over forms submitted in March 2024. A second person was charged with abetting her. In Penang, one business owner alone faced 21 charges across four companies. None of this involved large conglomerates or complex financial engineering — it was paperwork, and a lot of it.
The legal basis of the charges is important for you. Section 18 of the MACC Act deals with giving false information to a public officer when you know it’s false. The punishment upon conviction can reach up to 20 years in prison. This isn’t a small fine and a warning. This is a criminal offence that can end your career as a business owner.
How This Applies to Malaysian SMEs
Directors carry personal risk. In all four court locations — Kuala Lumpur, Perak, Penang and Sabah — the people charged were individuals, not just the companies. The owner of Golden One Stop Services in Penang faced 21 charges alone. The owner of Million Software And Services in Ipoh faced 11 charges. If authorities believe your company submitted false claims, they will come after you by name. Your company registration doesn’t shield you. In fact, being the director is what puts you in the spotlight.
Delegation is not a defence. Notice how one of the Kuala Lumpur charges involved a person accused of abetting the director. This means the authorities are looking at everyone involved in the chain of approval — not just the person who physically typed out the form. If your office manager prepares claims and you sign them without checking, both of you can be implicated. The “I just signed it” excuse may work with your spouse; it won’t work in a Sessions Court.
Your past claims are not ancient history. The offences detailed in this case allegedly occurred between February and October 2024, yet the charges were brought in August 2026. That two-year gap should concern every SME owner who has claimed incentives in recent years. Compliance checks don’t happen immediately; they happen when systems are cross-matched. MACC and PERKESO are clearly doing that matching now, and the results are landing in courts.
Documentation is your only safety net. For every claim you have made, ask yourself: can I prove that employee existed, worked, and was paid? Not just with a form you submitted, but with EPF contributions, payslips, attendance records, or bank records. If the answer is no, you have a gap that could be interpreted as intent. In this case, the core allegation is false verification forms — the exact kind of document that is easy to fabricate and equally easy to disprove with proper records.
Nobody plans to commit fraud. But when a business owner signs off on incentive claims without ever checking the underlying facts, the road to the courtroom is already half-travelled.
| Court location | Individuals charged | Number of charges | Alleged period of offences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kuala Lumpur | 4 | 21 counts | March – October 2024 |
| Ipoh (Perak) | 4 | 29 counts | February – September 2024 |
| George Town (Penang) | 4 | 30 counts | March – August 2024 |
| Kota Kinabalu (Sabah) | 5 | 9 counts | August 2024 |
The total amounts to 89 charges across four states — a scale that suggests this is not a one-off case but a coordinated enforcement push.
Practical Takeaways
- Verify before you sign: For every PERKESO claim, go through each named employee yourself. Confirm they are still working for you, their details are accurate, and they meet the programme’s eligibility criteria.
- Maintain one file per claim: Store employment contracts, payslips, EPF statements and attendance records together, so you can produce them the moment someone asks.
- Run a quick audit this month: List every incentive claim your company submitted in the past two years. If any claim looks weak or inaccurate, consult a lawyer before the authorities come to you.
- Control third-party agents: If an agent handles your claims, request a written undertaking that all information is true and correct — then verify it yourself. Their assurances won’t protect you in court.
- Treat every form as evidence: The attitude of “it’s just paperwork” is exactly how honest owners become criminal defendants. Treat every verification form as a document you may have to defend in front of a judge.
The Bigger Picture
This prosecution marks a turning point for government incentives in Malaysia. As the authorities integrate PERKESO’s employment databases with MACC’s enforcement powers, the era of casual claims is ending. For SMEs that keep genuine, verifiable records, this is good news: legitimate claims will be processed with less competition from fraudulent ones, and the available support will last longer for those who truly qualify.
Long-term, expect verification to become more automated — cross-checking employees against EPF records, MyFutureJobs registrations, and company payroll data before any incentive is paid. The businesses that adapt to this by keeping clean internal records will face smoother approvals. Those that relied on shortcuts or sloppiness will find themselves explaining their paperwork in a courtroom.
The 17 people charged this week all pleaded not guilty, and under Malaysian law they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. But their situation is a reminder that incentive claims are not optional paperwork — they are legal certifications. Every SME owner in Malaysia should take one specific action today: pull out your oldest incentive claim, check it against your actual workforce, and close any gap you find.
Your business may deserve every bit of support it receives. Make sure your paperwork proves it.
Ready to Streamline Your Operations?
Your business should run itself. AutoRunBiz deploys AI agents to automate your daily operations — WhatsApp orders, invoicing, customer follow-ups, and accounting. Book a free 15-min ops audit to see where automation fits your business →