KUALA LUMPUR — Datuk Richard Dilaan Morais is calling on the police to investigate alleged irregularities surrounding his late brother Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais’ will, claiming he has lodged three police reports over the matter but has yet to have his statement recorded.
Richard is now seeking for PDRM to investigate the allegations raised in his reports and, according to him, to take his statement despite the reports having been lodged on three occasions.
The allegations centre on the circumstances surrounding Kevin’s disputed will, the subsequent Grant of Probate and statements allegedly made during the probate proceedings.
In one of the reports, Richard alleged that lawyer Raam Kumar A/L M. Suppiah, who was named as executor of Kevin’s will, had relied on an affidavit signed by him in the process of obtaining the Grant of Probate.
Richard claimed he signed the affidavit in April 2022 after being told it was required by the Ipoh High Court to accept a photocopy of the will.
He now alleges that several statements contained in the affidavit were false.
“Therefore, in sworn said affidavit dated 26 April 2022 items 4, 5, and 6 are false,” Richard said in the report.
Richard claimed he had signed the affidavit because several years had passed since Kevin’s death and he wanted the probate process to be completed urgently.
He also said he had personally paid almost RM220,000 on behalf of his late brother’s estate.
Richard alleged that the affidavit was subsequently used to obtain the Grant of Probate and claimed that the court had consequently been misled.
“I believe the Executor has used my affidavit to mislead the Court and give him the Grant of Probate, to misappropriate funds from the Estate, for his benefit,” he added.
Another issue raised by Richard concerns the identity of a purported witness to Kevin’s will.
Richard alleged that Raam Kumar had stated in court documents that Raymond Walker, whom he claimed was a witness to the will, had died on Sept 16, 2014.
Richard disputes this, claiming Walker was a beneficiary and not one of the witnesses to Kevin’s will.
He said the two witnesses named on the document were R.P. Woollard and Peter Causton.
Richard further alleged that the signature appearing against Walker’s name on the disputed will did not belong to Walker.
“However, it is absolutely clear that the signature of the witness in Kevin Morais’ Will does not belong to Raymond Walker at all but to one R.P. Wollard,” he explained.
He claimed he subsequently obtained a copy of Walker’s will from his nephew, Gavin Walker, on June 11, 2024, which he said could be used to compare the signatures.
Richard also said he contacted Causton via WhatsApp to establish whether he had witnessed Kevin’s will.
According to Richard’s police report, Causton replied that he was only a witness to Walker’s will, and not to Kevin’s will.
Richard said he had retained screenshots of the exchange and could provide them to the authorities if required.
“I have 6 samples of documents signed by my late brother Kevin, to be submitted, when required,” he said.
He also raised questions over the physical appearance and formatting of the disputed will, including the spacing around the section containing the signatures.
Richard alleged that the signatures appeared unusually crowded and questioned whether changes had been made to the document.
The allegations also extend to the handling of assets belonging to Kevin’s estate.
Richard alleged that the executor had obtained access to assets including EPF, insurance and bank assets, and had subsequently sold assets and distributed the proceeds.
He claimed this was “in breach of his duties as an executor and as a trustee”.
The latest development comes as correspondence from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) dated Jan 13, 2026, shows that the matter had been referred to the Kuala Lumpur Prosecution Division for consideration.
According to Faizah Mohd Salleh who is Head of the Commercial and Cyber Crime Unit, Prosecution Division, the request for information had been received on Jan 12, 2026, and the documents were required for the department to investigate and examine the police reports.
She added that a decision would be communicated later after the relevant police reports had been received and the matter had been fully examined.
“However, this matter has been referred to the Director of Prosecution of the Kuala Lumpur Branch,” she added.
With three police reports now lodged and the AGC having confirmed that the relevant reports were being referred to the Kuala Lumpur Prosecution Division, Richard is seeking further action from PDRM, including having his statement recorded and the allegations investigated. – September 28, 2026