COMPANIES ACT 2016 
“officer”, in relation to a corporation, includes—
(a) any director, secretary or employee of the corporation;
(b) a receiver and manager of any part of the undertaking of the corporation appointed under a power contained in any instrument; and
(c) any liquidator of a company appointed in a voluntary winding up,
but does not include—
(i) any receiver who is not also a manager;
(ii) any receiver and manager appointed by the Court; or
(iii) any liquidator appointed by the Court or by the creditors;

Under the Companies Act 2016, an officer is a person who occupies a position of authority, responsibility, or management within a corporation, or who performs certain statutory functions on behalf of the corporation.
The definition is important because many duties, obligations, liabilities, offences, and penalties under the Companies Act 2016 apply specifically to an officer of a corporation.
The term extends beyond directors and company secretaries to include employees, certain receivers and managers, and certain liquidators. However, the Act expressly excludes several categories of persons whose appointments are made independently of the company's management. Persons Who Are Officers
The Companies Act 2016 specifically includes the following persons.
(a) Director
Every director of the corporation is an officer.
This includes:

• Executive directors;
• Non-executive directors;
• Alternate directors (where recognised); and
• Any person occupying the position of director.

Because directors manage and control the affairs of the company, they are officers for all purposes under the Act. (b) Company Secretary
Every company secretary is an officer.
The secretary is responsible for ensuring statutory compliance, maintaining corporate records, preparing resolutions, lodging documents with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), and advising the Board on corporate governance matters. (c) Employee
Every employee of the corporation is technically included within the statutory definition of an officer.
However, the extent to which an employee may be liable under the Companies Act depends on the particular provision involved.
In many cases, only employees who participate in, authorise, or are responsible for a particular act or omission will incur liability. (d) Receiver and Manager Appointed Under a Security Instrument
A receiver and manager appointed under powers contained in a security document (such as a debenture or charge) is regarded as an officer.
This commonly occurs where:

• a lender enforces security over company assets; and
• the security document authorises the appointment of a receiver and manager.

(e) Liquidator in a Voluntary Winding Up
A liquidator appointed by the members or creditors during a voluntary winding up is regarded as an officer for the purposes of this definition.
The liquidator assumes responsibility for administering the company's affairs during the voluntary liquidation. Persons Who Are NOT Officers
The Act specifically excludes certain persons.
(i) Receiver Only
A receiver who merely receives assets without managing the company's business is not an officer.
The distinction recognises that a receiver performs a more limited function than a receiver and manager. (ii) Court-Appointed Receiver and Manager
Where the Court appoints a receiver and manager, that person is not regarded as an officer under this definition.
The Court-appointed receiver acts as an officer of the Court rather than as part of the company's management. (iii) Court-Appointed or Creditors' Liquidator
A liquidator appointed:

• by the Court; or
• by the creditors,

is not regarded as an officer under this particular definition.
Such liquidators act independently of the company's management and owe duties primarily under insolvency law. Why Does the Act Distinguish Between Different Appointments?
The distinction reflects the nature of the person's appointment.
Persons appointed by the company or under the company's constitutional or contractual arrangements are generally regarded as officers because they are closely connected with the company's management.
By contrast, persons appointed independently by:

• the Court; or
• creditors,

perform their duties independently and are therefore excluded from this statutory definition. Legal Responsibilities of Officers
Depending on the relevant provision of the Companies Act 2016, officers may be responsible for:

• ensuring compliance with statutory obligations;
• maintaining proper accounting records;
• preparing and lodging statutory documents;
• exercising reasonable care, skill, and diligence;
• acting honestly and in good faith;
• preventing fraudulent or misleading conduct;
• assisting investigations conducted by SSM; and
• complying with Court orders and regulatory directions.

Failure to comply may expose officers to:

• civil liability;
• criminal liability;
• fines;
• imprisonment; or
• disqualification from holding office,

depending on the relevant statutory provision. Practical Examples
Example 1 – Director
ABC Sdn. Bhd. has three directors.
Each director is an officer of the company under the Companies Act 2016. Example 2 – Company Secretary
Ms. Lim is the licensed company secretary of XYZ Sdn. Bhd.
She is an officer because she serves as the company's secretary. Example 3 – Employee
A finance manager knowingly prepares false statutory documents for submission to SSM.
Although not a director, the finance manager is an employee and therefore falls within the statutory definition of an officer. Example 4 – Receiver and Manager
A bank appoints a receiver and manager under a debenture to manage the charged assets of DEF Berhad.
The receiver and manager is an officer because the appointment was made under a power contained in the security instrument. Example 5 – Court-Appointed Liquidator
The High Court appoints a liquidator to wind up GHI Berhad.
Although the liquidator administers the company's affairs, he is not an officer under this definition because the appointment was made by the Court. Compliance Requirements
A corporation should ensure that its officers:

• understand their statutory duties under the Companies Act 2016;
• maintain accurate corporate records;
• comply with all filing and disclosure obligations;
• exercise reasonable care, skill, diligence, and integrity;
• cooperate with regulatory authorities and auditors where required; and
• avoid conflicts of interest and misconduct that may expose the corporation or themselves to liability.

Importance
The definition of "officer" is one of the most significant definitions in the Companies Act 2016, as numerous statutory duties, offences, and liabilities are imposed specifically on officers of a corporation. By defining who is included—and expressly excluding certain independent appointees such as Court-appointed receivers and managers and Court- or creditor-appointed liquidators—the Act clearly identifies the individuals responsible for the company's management, administration, and compliance. This distinction promotes accountability, facilitates effective corporate governance, and ensures that responsibility for statutory compliance rests with those who exercise authority over the corporation's affairs.  
 

《2016 年公司法》

“高级人员”（Officer） 就法人团体（Corporation）而言，包括：

(a) 法人团体的任何董事（Director）、公司秘书（Secretary）或雇员（Employee）；

(b) 根据任何文书（Instrument）所赋予的权力，就法人团体全部或部分业务（Undertaking）获委任的接管人兼经理人（Receiver and Manager）；以及

(c) 于自愿清盘（Voluntary Winding Up）中获委任的任何清盘人（Liquidator）。

但不包括：

(i) 并非同时担任经理人的接管人（Receiver）；

(ii) 由法院委任的接管人兼经理人（Court-appointed Receiver and Manager）；或

(iii) 由法院或债权人委任的清盘人（Court-appointed or Creditors-appointed Liquidator）。

根据《2016 年公司法》，高级人员（Officer） 是指在法人团体内担任管理、行政或执行职务，或依法代表公司履行特定法定职责的人士。

“高级人员” 是《2016 年公司法》中极为重要的法律概念，因为法例中大量有关：

• 法定义务（Statutory Duties）；
• 法律责任（Liabilities）；
• 违法行为（Offences）；以及
• 刑罚（Penalties）

均是直接针对公司的**高级人员（Officer）**而规定。

《2016 年公司法》所称的高级人员，并不限于董事或公司秘书，还包括部分雇员、接管人兼经理人及某些清盘人。

与此同时，法律亦明确排除部分由法院或债权人独立委任的人士，因为他们并非公司的管理层成员，而是独立履行法定职责。

哪些人士属于高级人员？（Persons Who Are Officers）

《2016 年公司法》明确包括以下人士：

（一）董事（Director）

公司的每一位董事均属于高级人员。

包括：

• 执行董事（Executive Director）；
• 非执行董事（Non-executive Director）；
• 替任董事（Alternate Director）（如法律承认）；以及
• 任何实际担任董事职务的人士。

由于董事负责公司的整体管理及监督，因此在《2016 年公司法》下均属于高级人员。

（二）公司秘书（Company Secretary）

每位公司秘书均属于高级人员。

公司秘书主要负责：

• 确保公司遵守《2016 年公司法》；
• 保存公司法定记录；
• 编制董事及股东决议；
• 向马来西亚公司委员会（Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia，SSM）提交法定文件；以及
• 就公司治理（Corporate Governance）向董事会提供专业意见。

（三）雇员（Employee）

公司的每位雇员，在法律定义上均属于高级人员。

然而，雇员是否需要承担法律责任，则须视《2016 年公司法》相关条文而定。

一般而言，仅当雇员：

• 参与有关违法行为；
• 授权有关行为；或
• 对有关行为负有责任，

才可能承担相应法律责任。

（四）根据担保文件委任的接管人兼经理人（Receiver and Manager Appointed Under a Security Instrument）

若接管人兼经理人是依据担保文件（如债权证 Debenture 或抵押 Charge）所赋予的权力而获委任，则属于高级人员。

此情况通常发生于：

• 贷款人（Lender）执行其抵押权益；以及
• 担保文件授权委任接管人兼经理人管理有关资产。

（五）自愿清盘中的清盘人（Liquidator in a Voluntary Winding Up）

在自愿清盘程序中，由成员或债权人依法委任的清盘人，属于本定义下的高级人员。

清盘人负责接管公司事务，并依法完成清盘程序。

哪些人士不属于高级人员？（Persons Who Are NOT Officers）

《2016 年公司法》明确排除以下人士：

（一）仅担任接管人的人士（Receiver Only）

若某人士仅负责接收或保管公司资产，而并未负责管理公司业务，则不属于高级人员。

这是因为接管人的职能较接管人兼经理人为有限。

（二）法院委任的接管人兼经理人（Court-appointed Receiver and Manager）

若接管人兼经理人由法院委任，则不属于本定义下的高级人员。

这是因为该人士是作为**法院人员（Officer of the Court）**履行职责，而并非公司管理层成员。

（三）法院或债权人委任的清盘人（Court-appointed or Creditors-appointed Liquidator）

由：

• 法院；或
• 债权人

委任的清盘人，并不属于本定义下的高级人员。

这些清盘人属于独立履行法定职责的人士，其主要责任来自破产及清盘法律，而非公司的管理体系。

为什么法律要区分不同委任方式？（Why Does the Act Distinguish Between Different Appointments?）

《2016 年公司法》之所以区分不同类别的高级人员，是因为其委任来源及法律角色不同。

一般而言，由公司自行委任，或依据公司章程、合约或担保文件获委任的人士，与公司经营管理关系密切，因此属于高级人员。

相反，由以下人士独立委任者：

• 法院；或
• 债权人，

主要是独立履行法定职责，而非代表公司管理公司事务，因此法律将其排除于本定义之外。

高级人员的法律责任（Legal Responsibilities of Officers）

根据《2016 年公司法》不同条文，高级人员可能须负责：

• 确保公司遵守法定义务；
• 保存完整及正确的会计记录；
• 编制及提交法定文件；
• 以合理谨慎、专业技能及勤勉态度履行职责；
• 诚实行事并以公司的最佳利益为依归；
• 防止欺诈、虚假或误导行为；
• 配合马来西亚公司委员会（SSM）的调查工作；以及
• 遵守法院命令及监管机构发出的合法指示。

违反有关规定，高级人员可能承担：

• 民事责任（Civil Liability）；
• 刑事责任（Criminal Liability）；
• 罚款（Fine）；
• 监禁（Imprisonment）；或
• 被取消担任公司职务资格（Disqualification from Holding Office）。

实际责任将视《2016 年公司法》有关条文而定。

实务示例（Practical Examples）

例子一：董事（Director）

ABC Sdn. Bhd. 共有三名董事。

根据《2016 年公司法》，三位董事均属于公司的高级人员。

例子二：公司秘书（Company Secretary）

林女士（Ms. Lim）为 XYZ Sdn. Bhd. 的持牌公司秘书。

由于她担任公司秘书，因此依法属于公司的高级人员。

例子三：雇员（Employee）

某公司财务经理明知有关法定文件内容失实，仍编制并提交予马来西亚公司委员会（SSM）。

虽然该财务经理并非董事，但其属于公司雇员，因此仍属于《2016 年公司法》所定义的高级人员，并可能依法承担法律责任。

例子四：接管人兼经理人（Receiver and Manager）

某银行依据债权证（Debenture）的授权，委任一名接管人兼经理人管理 DEF Berhad 已抵押的资产。

由于该委任是依据担保文件进行，因此该接管人兼经理人属于公司的高级人员。

例子五：法院委任的清盘人（Court-appointed Liquidator）

高等法院委任一名清盘人负责 GHI Berhad 的清盘工作。

虽然该清盘人负责管理公司事务，但由于其由法院委任，因此不属于本定义下的高级人员。

合规要求（Compliance Requirements）

公司应确保所有高级人员：

• 充分了解《2016 年公司法》赋予其的法定义务；
• 妥善保存公司法定记录及公司资料；
• 遵守所有法定申报及资料披露规定；
• 以合理谨慎、专业技能、勤勉及诚信履行职责；
• 于需要时积极配合监管机构及审计人员的工作；以及
• 避免利益冲突、失当行为或任何可能导致公司或个人承担法律责任的行为。

重要性（Importance）

“高级人员（Officer）” 是《2016 年公司法》中最重要的定义之一，因为法例中大量有关企业管理、法定责任、违法行为及处罚规定，均直接针对高级人员而设。

透过明确界定哪些人士属于高级人员，以及明确排除法院委任的接管人兼经理人及法院或债权人委任的清盘人等独立人士，《2016 年公司法》能够清楚界定谁应负责公司的经营管理、行政事务及法定合规工作。

这一制度的重要意义包括：

• 明确公司管理层的法律责任及职责范围；
• 建立企业内部问责制度（Corporate Accountability）；
• 强化公司治理（Corporate Governance）及内部控制；
• 确保《2016 年公司法》的法定义务由实际掌管公司事务的人士承担；
• 减少职责混淆及法律争议；以及
• 促进企业依法经营，提高公司管理透明度，并维护股东、债权人及其他利益相关者的合法权益。