MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD (COMPANY NO: 200701029411/787435-M) 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN RAMLI (NO K/P: 710226-08-5913)

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD (COMPANY NO: 200701029411/787435-M) 1. ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ) MOHD KHAIRUDDIN BIN RAMLI (NO K/P: 710226-08-5913)

Gazettal under s41(2) MACC Act constituted valid service and the bank had the legal duty and burden to come forward and prove it was a purchaser in good faith; having failed to do so within the statutory period and having shown indolence, the Sessions Court correctly made the forfeiture order and this Court refused...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
AA-42(ORS)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Maybank Islamic Berhad; 1st Respondent: Public Prosecutor; 2nd Respondent: Mohd Khairuddin bin Ramli
Court
ORS
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 September 2021
Case Number
AA-42(ORS)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Under MACC Act) / Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; forfeiture order upheld
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Seizure Orders, Audi Alteram Partem, Locus Standi, Extension of Time, Purchase in Good Faith, Gazette Notice, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Administrative Law Property Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Evidence Forfeiture +7 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maybank Islamic Berhad

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

1st Respondent

Mohd Khairuddin bin Ramli

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Under MACC Act) / Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forfeiture order was made in breach of audi alteram partem because the bank was not made a party
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court failed to satisfy itself that the bank was a purchaser for value in good faith before ordering forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time should be granted to the bank to apply to set aside the forfeiture order

Ratio Decidendi

Gazettal under s41(2) MACC Act constituted valid service and the bank had the legal duty and burden to come forward and prove it was a purchaser in good faith; having failed to do so within the statutory period and having shown indolence, the Sessions Court correctly made the forfeiture order and this Court refused to extend time or set aside the order; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; forfeiture order upheld

Orders

  • Forfeiture Order dated 9.3.2015 upheld
  • Costs of RM500 awarded to the Respondent (Public Prosecutor)