Impersonating an agent

Q.
Where on earth does it say impersonating an agent is wrong? Ah Beng was arguing with Johnny after failing to solicit for his house for sale.

"I was just trying to help you sell your house! For God's sake! For a small commission that I make a living out of it! I haven't even sold your house yet! And, I was just going around asking people if they have for houses for sale! I'm not acting as house agent yet!"

Ah Beng is trying to argue his way out of the situation. He added "You mean, I am a thief before I even steal your car? That is ridiculous!!!"

Provide proof to Ah Beng that he is still wrong in the law.

A. (Repost from my-realproperty2.blogspot.com)

S.30 (2) of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act, 1981 is the law for this scenario.

What S.30(2) says is:

Any person [including Ah Beng] who, without any lawful authority-

(a) acts as a valuer, appraiser or estate agent for any party or acts in any capacity as a valued, appraiser or estate agent whether the primary or principal object of his business is valuation, appraisal or estate agency or whether any incidental part of his business is valuation, appraisal or estate agency; or

(b) wilfully or falsely pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is duly qualified or authorized to act as, a valuer, appraiser or estate agent, or that he is by law so qualified or authorized,

commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.

S.30(1)(e) has the wording "impersonates". S.30 (1) is long, so an extract on (e) is shown below:

(e) impersonates a registered valuer, appraiser or estate agent;

S.30(2)(b) put Ah Beng as "pretends to be" and that is also carrying the meaning of impersonating an agent.

Furthermore, S.30(2)(a) says "incidental part of his business is ... estate agency" which means it does not have to be the whole part.

And, "whether the primary or principal object", again it means it does not need to be the main part, yet it is taken as wrong.

Lastly, talking about selling or asking people if they are selling their houses is not soliciting for business. However, if knowingly a person has a house for sale, and asking him to give commission for selling his house, that is acting as an agent.

This is stated in S.2 Interpretation of VAEA Act, 1981.

"Estate agency practice" means acting or holding oneself out to the public or to any individual or firm as ready to act, for a commission, fee, reward or other considerations, as an agent in respect of the sale or other disposal of land and buildings and of any interest therein or the purchase or other acquisition of land and buildings and of any interest therein or in respect of the leasing or letting of land and buildings and of any interest therein including the act of making known of the availability of land, building or any interest therein for such sale or other disposal, purchase or other acquisition, leading or letting;

The key word here for this scenario is "ready to act". So, Ah Beng was ready to act as an agent to Johnny and he also said he relied on a "small commission", thus making his act of soliciting for business (asking for commission) real, a fact of practising estate agency.

And, that is in contravention of S.30(2)(a) and punishable by a fine of maximum RM300,000 or imprisonment of maximum 3 years or to both.

On the part "a thief before I even steal your car?"

Well, the act of stealing is wrong. In this case, the soliciting for Johnny's house for sale is an act. So, it is taken by the law - in this case S.30(2) of VAEA Act, 1981, as an offence. Whether a commission is paid (car is stolen), becomes immaterial.

Nevertheless, the punishment for asking without doing the wrong is of course logically less severe than asking and actually doing the wrong. So, the fine and imprisonment term if any, would be less heavy on Ah Beng.

Ref:
Sections 2 and 30 of VAEA Act, 1981.