Kuching: Stampin MP and ADUN for Padungan, Chong Chieng Jen, called on Bank Simpanan Nasional (BSN) not to further penalise victims of an alleged investment scam involving its former employees by refusing to refund their losses fully.
Chong said the government-owned bank should take responsibility for fraud committed by its staff, rather than imposing what he described as unjustifiable conditions on victims seeking compensation.
His call came after a woman had sought assistance after the bank refunded only 40% of the money she lost in a scheme involving a former employee.
According to Chong, the victim, identified as Ms Jee, handed over RM25,000 in cash to a then-employee at the BSN Jalan Tun Jugah branch in June 2025 and received a BSN Makmur Investment Receipt acknowledging the payment.
“However, when the alleged investment scam was exposed in December last year, she discovered that the entire sum had been misappropriated by the employee, who has since been terminated,” he said.
Chong said Ms Jee later filed a claim with the bank seeking a refund from BSN, but was reimbursed only RM10,000 last month.
“The bank reportedly claimed that the remaining RM15,000 was a suspicious source of funds because she did not show any record of cash withdrawal from any bank account.
“It is as if keeping cash in one’s possession is a crime!” he said.
He pointed out that Ms Jee operates a small sundry shop on the outskirts of Kuching, where most transactions are conducted in cash, adding that it was therefore not unusual for her to keep that amount of cash.
Chong criticised what he described as BSN’s policy requiring victims to prove that cash handed to a bank employee had been withdrawn from a bank account within 30 days before the alleged misappropriation to qualify for a full refund.
“If the cash was not withdrawn from a bank account within that period, BSN considers it suspicious and refuses to refund it.
“Such an excuse by BSN to deny a refund to the scam victims is most ridiculous,” Chong said, calling the requirement’ arbitrary and unfair.’
He argued that a bank’s legal obligation to compensate customers for fraud committed by its employees during the course of their work should be independent of the customer’s source of funds.
“Even if the source of funds is suspicious, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate, not for the bank to use that as a reason to avoid reimbursing victims,” he said.
