University of Malaya Law Review

[Faculty Achievement]

The University of Malaya Moot Club and the University of Malaya Law Review warmly congratulates Team IP03 for their amazing showing at the National IP Law Moot Competition 2026: IP & Sports!

The team consists of:
1. Ms Chloe Fu Kar Yan
2. Ms Lee Sing Yee

Team IP03 emerged as the Champion of the inaugural competition. Individually, Ms Chloe Fu Kar Yan was selected as the Best Oralist — a testament to her fantastic advocacy skills.

The inaugural National IP Law Moot Competition 2026, organised by the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia ('MyIPO'), featured finalists the University of Malaya ('UM') and Advance Tertiary College ('ATC'). Representing UM, team IP03 emerged as the champions, earning the opportunity to represent Malaysia at the WIPO IP Moot Court Competition in Geneva, Switzerland next year.

The team would like to express its sincere gratitude to the team’s coach, Ms Saradha Lakshmi, as well as Mr Nishooldran Ravindran, Mr Woh Tung Ming, and Ms Arveen Kaur for their invaluable guidance and constructive feedback throughout the competition. Their expertise, insightful advice, and unwavering support played a significant role in refining the team’s advocacy and strengthening their preparation, and were instrumental to the team's success.

The team would also like to thank Team IP04, their fellow UM colleagues, for a wonderful and highly engaging quarter-finals round. Their invaluable support and sharing of materials greatly assisted the team's preparation for the finals as well.

A final round of applause to Team IP03 on their remarkable triumph! May their success act as a guiding standard, motivating students to strive for their own victories in future mooting competitions.



‘Fueled by honesty, integrity and a passion for the law’

[Faculty Achievement]

The University of Malaya Moot Club and the University of Malaya Law Review congratulate Team Malaysia on their outstanding achievement at the ALA ASEAN Moot Competition 2026. The finals of the competition were held in conjunction with the ASEAN Law Association General Assembly 2026, in the esteemed presence of Chief Justices from across Southeast Asia.

Team Malaysia emerged as First Runner-Up after facing Team Indonesia in the finals. The team was also awarded the Best Memorial Award for the highest combined memorial scores of the competition.

Remaining undefeated throughout preliminary rounds and semi-final rounds, Team Malaysia was ranked as the Top Ranked Team throughout.

The powerhouse Team Malaysia consists of:

1. Mr Foo Kai Cheong (Universiti Malaya)
2. Mr Tan Wei Jun (Universiti Malaya)
3. Ms Ainul Syazwina binti Samsuddin (International Islamic University Malaysia)

The team extends its deepest appreciation to their coach, Mr Nevyn Vinosh, whose unwavering guidance, patience, and invaluable mentorship were instrumental to this remarkable success. The team also expresses its heartfelt gratitude to Ms Abby Si Xinyi for her generous support throughout the preparation process, insightful feedback, and strategic guidance.

Once again, heartfelt congratulations to Team Malaysia on this remarkable accomplishment.

May this achievement continue to inspire aspiring mooters to pursue excellence with determination, integrity, and unwavering dedication.



"Fueled by honesty, integrity, and a passion for the law."

[Lex; in Breve]

Amid ongoing conflicts across Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, the world continues to grapple with how the atrocities witnessed should be legally defined and prosecuted.

In this article titled 'Is the Definition of Genocide Fit for Purpose?,' it presents a critical evaluation of genocide as a legal concept distinct from Crimes Against Humanity.

The article traces the origins of the term 'genocide' from Raphael Lemkin's seminal 1944 thesis to its codification in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, while examining how international courts have interpreted the Convention's 'intent' requirement.

Through a doctrinal lens, the article ultimately contends that the Convention's definition no longer serves its intended purpose, leaving courts to grapple with an interpretational standard that fails to reflect present-day realities.

Authored by: Irfan Suhail Mohamed
Formatted by: Soh Ming Liang
Reviewed by: Wui Xiao Hang and Wong Xin Lin

To read more, head to http://universityofmalaya-law-review.squarespace.com and click 'Lex; In Breve' for the full article.

'Fueled by honesty, integrity, and a passion for the law'

[Faculty Achievement]

The University of Malaya Moot Club and the University of Malaya Law Review proudly recognises Team 2610 exceptional showing at the ALSA International Moot Court Competition 2026 (International Rounds)!

The team consists of:
1. Mr Shawn Lee Wen Xuan
2. Mr Sheyshan Shanmugayogan
3. Mr Thishant Sai Sugaythran

Team 2610 arose as the First Runner-Up, standing formidable amongst advocates from all over Asia. Most notably, Mr Shawn Lee Wen Xuan emerged as the Best Oralist in the Preliminary Rounds, a testament to his exceptional advocacy skills. Additionally, the team was also awarded the Best Memorial Award, showcasing the team’s exceptional written memorials.

The AIMCC is a premier competition that cultivates an international environment designed to sharpen written and oral advocacy, build professional resilience and leadership, and forge lasting networks among future legal professionals.

The team is eternally thankful to each other for showing up with determination and never losing their winning spirit until the very end of the tournament.

We extend our highest praise to Team 2610 once again for their extraordinary success! Let their triumph act as a source of motivation for other members of the faculty to reach unprecedented heights



‘Fueled by honesty, integrity and a passion for the law’

[Court of Appeal Rules Children Born Out of Wedlock Cannot Derive Malaysian Citizenship from Malaysian Fathers]

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that two individuals born in Malaysia were not entitled to Malaysian citizenship under the Federal Constitution because their Malaysian fathers were not legally married to their non-Malaysian mothers at the time of their birth.

The case involved a Kuala Lumpur-born woman and a Perak-born man seeking recognition as Malaysian citizens after being raised solely by their Malaysian fathers. Both argued that they were entitled to citizenship by operation of law based on their Malaysian birth and biological connection to their Malaysian fathers.

Subsequently, the court considered whether children born out of wedlock could derive Malaysian citizenship from their biological fathers under Article 14(1)(b), read together with Sections 1(a) and 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Federal Constitution.

The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that under Section 17 of Part III of the Second Schedule, references to a child’s “parent” in cases involving children born out of wedlock refer only to the mother. The court further held that the appellants could not rely on the statelessness provision, as their citizenship followed their respective mothers.

Court of Appeal rules children born out of wedlock cannot inherit Malaysian father’s citizenship KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — The Court of Appeal today unanimously decided that two persons who were born in Malaysia are not entitled to be Malaysian citizens under the Federal...

[Court of Appeal Rules Cryptocurrency Valid for Debt Repayment]

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that cryptocurrency may constitute valid contractual consideration for the repayment of a debt if accepted by the creditor, despite not being recognised as legal tender in Malaysia.

The case arose from a friendly loan, where the borrower repaid the debt by transferring 50 Litecoins worth approximately RM87,000 to the lender in full settlement. Although the lender accepted the cryptocurrency, he later sought to recover the original RM70,000 in cash.

Subsequently, the High Court reversed the Magistrates’ decision, and held that the lender had agreed to accept the Litecoin as repayment and that cryptocurrency could constitute valid contractual consideration where both parties agreed to its use.

Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the lender’s appeal, holding that the debt had been fully discharged upon the acceptance of the Litecoin and that the lender was not entitled to recover the RM70,000 in cash after accepting the cryptocurrency as full settlement.

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2026/07/21/appeals-court-rules-crypto-is-valid-debt-repayment-if-accepted-by-lender

[Dewan Negara Passes Cyber Security Bill 2026]

On Tuesday, the Dewan Negara passed the Cyber Security Bill 2026, strengthening Malaysia’s legal framework to address increasingly complex cyber threats.

The Bill was introduced to repeal the Computer Crimes Act 1997 and enhance the country’s ability to combat cybercrime. It also provides that all offences under the Bill are extraditable, as they carry a minimum imprisonment term of three years.

Furthermore, the Bill provides legal measures to address the criminal misuse of technologies, including artificial intelligence, for offences such as fraud, election interference, and sexual exploitation. It also clarifies that it is not intended to restrict freedom of speech, academic inquiry, or lawful journalism.

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2026/07/1493658/dewan-negara-passes-cyber-security-bill-2026-tackle-growing-cyber

[Sessions Court Jails Mechanic 20 Years for R**e and Robbery of Teen Jogger]

On Monday, the Sessions Court sentenced a mechanic to 20 years’ imprisonment and 7 strokes of the cane after he pleaded guilty to ra**ng and robbing a 15-year-old girl in Tumpat.

In June 2026, the teenager was jogging when the accused injured her back and face with a wooden stick, then robbed her of her mobile phone, and r***d her in a bushy area in Kampung Mesira, Palekbang.

Subsequently, he was charged under Section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code for r**e, and under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code for armed robbery.

In court, the accused pleaded for leniency, stating that he had a wife and a three-year-old child to support. Ultimately, the court sentenced the accused to 15 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane for r**e, and 5 years’ imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane for robbery, with the sentences to run consecutively.

Additionally, the accused was also ordered to undergo rehabilitation counselling during imprisonment and three years of police supervision upon release.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/07/20/mechanic-jailed-20-years-caned-for-ra**ng-robbing-teen-jogger-in-tumpat/228322

[Court of Appeal Rules Police Officer Wrongfully Retained Former Bank Officer’s Funds]

On Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that a police officer had unlawfully frozen and retained a former bank officer’s funds under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act.

In June 2014, four of the former bank officer’s bank accounts were frozen during a police investigation involving his mother. Although a seizure order was issued over one account, it expired after 12 months without any forfeiture proceedings being commenced. The funds were only returned more than four years later after the former bank officer successfully sought their release through legal action.

The Court of Appeal found that the freezing order failed to comply with the Act due to insufficient basis to suspect the former of committing money laundering, and that the investigating officer had abused her statutory powers by failing to release the funds after the seizure order expired.

Further, a police officer was cleared of liability due to his limited role, while an unnamed deputy public prosecutor was cleared as no specific officer had been identified and sued.

Accordingly, the court held the investigating officer, the Inspector-General of Police and the Government jointly and severally liable. It allowed the former’s appeal for increased damages, raising general damages from RM200,000 to RM500,000 while maintaining the RM100,000 exemplary damages awarded by the Ipoh High Court.

[In Review: US-ISRAEL vs IRAN: BROADER REGIONAL CONFRONTATION]
News compiled up to June 18, 2026 14:06PM

First source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c309vz0z893o

Please note that this takeaway caption is intended solely to provide an academic review of reported news. It compiles the results and discussions of reported news to highlight the importance of the legislation or issues reported. The views expressed and actions depicted do not represent those of UMLR.

Written by Nur Shana Fariha and Aziq Rosdi
Reviewed by Chelsea Lam Cher Sze and Wong Xin Lin