Malaysia Car Forfeited in Singapore for Illegal Cross-Border Ferrying

by Rachel Morgan News Editor

A Singapore court has ordered the forfeiture of a Malaysia-registered vehicle to the state after it was found to be used for illegal cross-border passenger ferrying.

Legal proceedings and penalties

The vehicle’s owner, 31-year-old Malaysian resident Tkhisenwara Rau Athi Naidu, pleaded guilty to operating the car as a public service vehicle without a valid license. He also lacked a valid insurance policy that covered the vehicle for use in “hire or reward” scenarios.

The incident was intercepted at approximately 10.35am on September 30, 2025, at the Woodlands Checkpoint. At the time of the stop, a passenger was present in the vehicle.

Mr. Tkhisenwara, who lives in Johor Bahru, had been using the vehicle to transport passengers from Sunset Way in Clementi, Singapore, to Johor Bahru for a fee of S$70 (US$55).

Did You Know? Between July 2025 and February 27, 2026, the Land Transport Authority checked over 3,200 vehicles and impounded 185 for illegal cross-border ride-hailing services.

Mandatory forfeiture vs. Financial hardship

During the court proceedings, Mr. Tkhisenwara requested the return of his vehicle, citing a significant financial burden. He had borrowed approximately RM110,000 (S$35,365) to finance the car and was required to service the loan repayments over a nine-year period.

Despite these mitigating circumstances, District Judge Shawn Ho ruled that the owner’s outstanding loan liabilities could not override the mandatory phrasing of the Road Traffic Act. The judge stated that the court possesses no discretion to withhold a forfeiture order based on such grounds.

In addition to the forfeiture, Mr. Tkhisenwara was fined S$1,800 and received a 12-month ban from holding or obtaining any class of driving license.

Expert Insight: This ruling highlights the rigid enforcement of the Road Traffic Act regarding illegal ride-hailing. The court’s decision underscores that statutory mandates for vehicle forfeiture take precedence over an individual’s personal financial obligations and debt liabilities.

Looking ahead

The legal process regarding the vehicle is not yet concluded. Mr. Tkhisenwara has indicated that he will be appealing the forfeiture order.

This appeal may serve as the next step in determining whether the vehicle can be returned to the owner, despite the mandatory nature of the current ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the specific charges against the driver?

Mr. Tkhisenwara pleaded guilty to using a Malaysia-registered car as a public service vehicle without a valid license or a valid insurance policy for third-party risks.

The first Singapore-developed driverless car for public roads

Why was the vehicle’s insurance considered insufficient?

While the vehicle was insured, the existing policy did not cover the vehicle when it was being used for hire or reward.

Have there been any recent changes to cross-border taxi services?

Yes, changes to cross-border taxis between Singapore and Malaysia took effect earlier this month, allowing for additional pick-up locations and flexible drop-off points.

Do you believe mandatory forfeiture laws should allow for judicial discretion in cases involving significant personal debt?

You may also like

Leave a Comment