MOHD ARIF BIN AB RAHMAN

MOHD ARIF BIN AB RAHMAN

Section 41 MACC Act governs in rem forfeiture and, though silent on standard, must be applied with the civil standard (balance of probabilities); the claimant bears the burden to show lawful acquisition on that standard. The respondent failed to produce a sufficient documentary money‑trail or substantive evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-42(Ors)-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Arif bin Ab Rahman; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
Ors
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Case Number
BA-42(Ors)-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Application Under MACC Act 2009) / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision allowing forfeiture set aside
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Under MACC Act S41, Standard and Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings, Admissibility of Accused Statements, Requirement for Documentary/money Trail Nexus, Action in Rem Vs Action in Personam
Anti‑corruption Law Forfeiture Law Evidence Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Forfeiture Under MACC Act S41 Standard and Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings Admissibility of Accused Statements +2 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Arif bin Ab Rahman

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Application Under MACC Act 2009) / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the applicable burden and standard of proof for forfeiture under s41 MACC Act?
  2. 2 Whether statements under s53(1) MACC Act are admissible in civil forfeiture proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the respondent adduced sufficient documentary/money‑trail evidence to connect seized property to offences under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 41 MACC Act governs in rem forfeiture and, though silent on standard, must be applied with the civil standard (balance of probabilities); the claimant bears the burden to show lawful acquisition on that standard. The respondent failed to produce a sufficient documentary money‑trail or substantive evidence connecting the seized assets to offences and relied improperly on privileged s53 statements and inconsistent IO averments. Consequently the Sessions Court forfeiture order could not stand and was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision allowing forfeiture set aside

Orders

  • Sessions Court order dated 17 January 2019 allowing forfeiture pursuant to s41 MACC Act set aside