Police nab Chinese nationals in Kuala Perlis burglary probe
Kangar district police chief ACP Yusharifuddin Mohd Yusop said police received a report at 11.38pm from a man who found that his uncle's house in the area had been broken into.
"Initial investigations found that the house showed signs of a break-in at the back door. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage showed three suspects entering the house and taking several valuable items," he said in a statement on Saturday (July 19).
Yusharifuddin said among the items reported missing were jewellery worth about RM1,200, cash worth RM2,500 from a safe and another RM357 from a drawer in a cupboard in one of the rooms of the house.
He said the investigation team from the Kangar Criminal Investigation Division (BSJD) together with the Forensic Unit of the Perlis police contingent headquarters (IPK) also inspected the scene of the incident.
He said earlier at 10.10 pm on the same day, police received information from the public that three unknown men were believed to have broken into the house and have been detained by villagers.
"Acting on the information, the arresting officer together with members of the Kuala Perlis police station task force and a MPV team of the Kangar IPD Kuala Perlis Zone went to the location and re-arrested the three men involved.
"The results of the investigation found that they were Chinese nationals aged between 38 and 54 years old who had been in this country for less than a week were looking for work. They were said to have been offered jobs as cooks but have yet to deal with any employers," he said.
Yusharifuddin said further inspection found that the three suspects had valid travel documents and items believed to belong to the victims, including cash and jewellery, were also seized from them.
He said the case is being investigated under Section 457 of the Penal Code, which carries a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine or both upon conviction .
"The remand application against the three suspects has been granted for six days starting today by Magistrate Nurshahida Abdul Rahim," he said. - Bernama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
MMEA intercepts Vietnamese boat with sea cucumbers near Kudat
KUDAT: A Vietnamese fishing vessel, involved in sea cucumber harvesting, acted aggressively when it attempted to ram a Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) boat while trying to escape yesterday. However, the attempt failed as the Cenderawasih 10 patrol boat successfully intercepted and detained them in an incident about 4am, 1.22 nautical miles southeast of Tanjung Bukit, Pulau Malawali. The Kudat Maritime Zone director, Maritime Commander Hasbullah Omar, said the Cenderawasih 10 boat was deployed to the location immediately after receiving public information and subsequently detected the suspicious movement of the vessel. "When approached, the suspects cut the tow rope, leaving it dangling long behind the vessel. They also installed iron bars on the left and right sides to prevent the operations team from getting closer," he said in a statement. "The suspects also tried to ram the Malaysian Maritime patrol boat that was attempting to approach." He said MMEA pursued the vessel for almost 15 minutes before officers managed to board the foreign fishing vessel and detain it. "Further inspection found it was carrying special solid iron equipment, believed to be for sea cucumber harvesting. Also found on board were 40kg of sea cucumbers and 300 litres of diesel. "Five Vietnamese nationals, aged between 28 and 39, were detained for not possessing valid identification documents," he said. All those arrested, along with the vessel, marine produce, and equipment, were brought to the Kudat maritime jetty for further investigation. The total value of the seizure is estimated to be over RM2 million. The case is being investigated under the Fisheries Act 1985 and the Immigration Act 1956/63.
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
MCMC probing offensive post on royal institution
PUTRAJAYA: The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is investigating an individual suspected of posting extremely offensive comments on Facebook that touched on the royal institution regarding the appointment of the Chief Justice. MCMC announced today that the person's statement was recorded at the Kampung Melayu Subang police station in Selangor, and a mobile phone with a SIM card was seized to assist in the investigation. The investigation is being conducted under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which provides for a maximum fine of RM500,000 or imprisonment for up to two years, or both, if convicted. MCMC warns the public to use social media platforms ethically, prudently, and responsibly.
Rakyat Post
2 hours ago
- Rakyat Post
Do You Own Images You Paid A Photographer To Take? Here's What We Know
Subscribe to our FREE When you hire a professional photographer, there tends to be some confusion about ownership over the photos. Logically, most people would think that the photos would belong to the client, who paid for the service. However, there is a fine line between the law and ethics when it comes to photo ownership and what the photos are used for. For example, a gold investment agent shared on Threads about how she confronted a photographer she hired after he uploaded a photo of her without her consent, even after she politely asked him not to. She also claimed that the photographer accused her of mistreating him and blocked her. 'I feel that it was I who was mistreated. I've paid RM1,500 but the results were not up to the standards that were promised to me as the client,' she said in her post. In an earlier post, she mentioned that she has worked with other photographers in the past, and that many of them sought her consent first before sharing the photos they took as part of their portfolio. Although the photographer did take the photos offline as she had asked, he advised her to draft an agreement so as to not make other photographers feel mistreated in the future. According to law, photographers own the pictures they take by default The gold agent said in one of her posts on the matter that she believes photos she paid for are fully owned by her as a client. But how much of this is true? According to Section 26 of the What this means in practice is the photographer owns all copyrights of the images they take, even if the photos are commissioned or paid for unless there is a contract that explicitly states a transfer of rights. There are a few exceptions though, according to Section 26(2): When a photographer is an employee of a company, the copyright belongs to the employer. Relating to commissioned works, copyright can be transferred to the client if it was agreed in a contract. Photographers need to consider ethical practices too, or risk facing legal consequences Image: Adobe Stock Now that we got the ownership parts out of the way, there is also the question of ethics on the photographer's side. While it's true that the photos are owned by the photographer unless stated otherwise in a mutually agreed contract, common decency also needs to be considered when a photo involves the privacy of an individual. If not careful, career photographers could find themselves embroiled in a legal battle should the prosecutor decide to invoke the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA), Section 509 of the Penal Code, or the Communications & Multimedia Act. Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) Image: Data Protection Outsourcing Sdn Bhd The So for example, your company uses a photo of someone for your business without their consent, they can legally demand its deletion under PDPA. However, photos that are taken informally (without any commercial links) are not covered under the PDPA. Privacy, harassment, and other laws Photographers must also be careful about sharing images that may intrude another person's modesty (e.g. intimate or embarrasing photos). Section 509 of the Penal Code criminalises exposure of one's Meanwhile, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act prohibits online content that is offensive, abusive, harassing, or menacing. Posting someone's image to annoy, harass, or shame them might fall under this, even in group chats. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
