HALILAH BINTI ARIPIN

HALILAH BINTI ARIPIN

Claimant produced credible documentary and witness evidence showing joint ownership, lawful purchase and financing of the property (loan and consistent salaries and lawful business income); respondent failed to prove the property was derived from or used in a prohibited activity or was 'illegal property' under Akta 340; therefore under s32(3) the Sessions Court was required to order the return of the seized property to the claimant.

Citation
NA-64FOP-3-09/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Claimant: Halilah binti Aripin; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Case Number
NA-64FOP-3-09/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture Proceeding Under Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 / Sessions Court Decision on Claim for Return of Seized Property Under Section 32(3)
Outcome
claim allowed; seized property returned to claimant
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Seizure, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Burden of Proof on Claimant, Section 32(3) Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Drug Law Evidence Forfeiture Seizure Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Burden of Proof on Claimant +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halilah binti Aripin

Claimant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture Proceeding Under Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 / Sessions Court Decision on Claim for Return of Seized Property Under Section 32(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant proved property was lawfully acquired and not 'illegal property' under Akta 340
  2. 2 Whether section 32(3) required return of seized property when claimant demonstrates lawful entitlement
  3. 3 Whether respondent proved connection between the property and prohibited activity or scheduled offence

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant produced credible documentary and witness evidence showing joint ownership, lawful purchase and financing of the property (loan and consistent salaries and lawful business income); respondent failed to prove the property was derived from or used in a prohibited activity or was 'illegal property' under Akta 340; therefore under s32(3) the Sessions Court was required to order the return of the seized property to the claimant.

Court Disposition

claim allowed; seized property returned to claimant

Orders

  • Seized property at No.29 Jalan Indah 5, Desa Indah, Putra Nilai is ordered released and returned to Halilah binti Aripin