GOOI & AZURA 1. ) 2. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) TAN LIANG KEAT 4. ) LIM KAH HENG 5. ) NG POH WENG 6. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 7. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS

GOOI & AZURA 1. ) 2. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) TAN LIANG KEAT 4. ) LIM KAH HENG 5. ) NG POH WENG 6. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 7. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS

High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court refusal to allow the Perayu to intervene: the seized assets were held to be proceeds of unlawful activity or otherwise subject to disposal under AMLATFA/section 407 read with AMLATFA; where a liquidator has been appointed the appropriate remedy for claims against company assets is to file proof of debt in the liquidation; AMLATFA and its procedural scheme govern disposal and section 407 does not afford the Perayu the relief sought.

Citation
WA-42(Ors)-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: Tetuan Gooi & Azura; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya; Respondent: Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Tan Liang Keat; Respondent: Lim Kah Heng; Respondent: Ng Poh Weng; Respondent: Philip Lim Jit Meng; Respondent: Ahmad Khairuddin bin Ilias
Court
Ors
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 April 2026
Case Number
WA-42(Ors)-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application to Intervene / High Court Judgment on Appeal (determination of Interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to intervene denied
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code, Amlatfa/forfeiture Provisions, Bona Fide Third Party Claims, Winding Up and Proof of Debt, Generalibus Specialia Derogant
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Money Laundering Banking Law Company Law Procedure Forfeiture Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code Amlatfa/forfeiture Provisions +3 more

Case Brief

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tetuan Gooi & Azura

Perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Tan Liang Keat

Respondent

Lim Kah Heng

Respondent

Ng Poh Weng

Respondent

Philip Lim Jit Meng

Respondent

Ahmad Khairuddin bin Ilias

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Application to Intervene / High Court Judgment on Appeal (determination of Interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed third party (Perayu) may intervene in forfeiture/disposal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether section 407 Criminal Procedure Code applies or AMLATFA special provisions govern forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether the seized assets constitute proceeds of unlawful activity and are therefore not company property

Ratio Decidendi

High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court refusal to allow the Perayu to intervene: the seized assets were held to be proceeds of unlawful activity or otherwise subject to disposal under AMLATFA/section 407 read with AMLATFA; where a liquidator has been appointed the appropriate remedy for claims against company assets is to file proof of debt in the liquidation; AMLATFA and its procedural scheme govern disposal and section 407 does not afford the Perayu the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to intervene denied

Orders

  • Application to intervene dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court refusing intervention is upheld