Fraud in land transaction: conflicting interest between registered proprietor and bona fide purchaser under the national land code 1965 / Noraffy Ahmad, Izzanee Ab Malek Foad and Haidatul Munira Hamzah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The numbers of fraud and forgery cases in land transaction are on the rise in Malaysia. Because of that, the issue of conflicting interest between the innocent parties such as the registered proprietor and the bona fide purchaser regarding their rights over the disputed land remains unresolved. It seems that the current Torrens System in Malaysia which applies the mirror and curtain principles as well as the provisions stipulated in the National Land Code 1965 is inadequate to protect the rights of both the registered proprietor as well as the bona fide purchaser with regards to cases of fraud and forgery in land transactions. Realizing this problem, this research paper will examine whether Malaysia can be considered as being at crossroads since it is currently facing a challenge as to whether it should adapt, implement and establish a Trust Assurance Fund as practiced in Canada and Australia in order to guarantee a complete protection for the innocent registered proprietor and bona fide purchaser involved in cases of fraud in land transactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".