1. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 2. BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

1. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 2. BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

The High Court held that s.35 presumption does not apply to s.32(3) Sessions Court claim proceedings; there was no prosecution or forfeiture proceedings under s.8 and no evidence that an offence had been committed in respect of the seized properties; claimants proved lawful entitlement (registered charge/financing) so the Sessions Court forfeiture order was wrong in law and must be set aside, with the seized properties released to the respective banks.

Citation
BA-42(ORS)-1-01/2020 & BA-42(ORS)-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (perayu Pertama): CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad; Appellant (perayu Kedua): Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
ORS
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 December 2021
Case Number
BA-42(ORS)-1-01/2020 & BA-42(ORS)-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture/criminal Appeal Under Akta 340 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order of forfeiture dated 19.12.2019 set aside
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Property, Presumption of Illegality (s.35), Burden of Proof in S.32(3) Proceedings, Interpretation of S.2, S.32(3), S.35 Akta 340
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Drug Law Evidence Law Forfeiture of Property Presumption of Illegality (s.35) Burden of Proof in S.32(3) Proceedings Interpretation of S.2, S.32(3), S.35 Akta 340

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad

Appellant (perayu Pertama)

Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad

Appellant (perayu Kedua)

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture/criminal Appeal Under Akta 340 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Forfeiture Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized properties constitute "illegal property" under s.2 Akta 340
  2. 2 Whether s.35 presumption of illegality applies to claims under s.32(3) Akta 340
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof in s.32(3) proceedings and what must the claimant prove

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that s.35 presumption does not apply to s.32(3) Sessions Court claim proceedings; there was no prosecution or forfeiture proceedings under s.8 and no evidence that an offence had been committed in respect of the seized properties; claimants proved lawful entitlement (registered charge/financing) so the Sessions Court forfeiture order was wrong in law and must be set aside, with the seized properties released to the respective banks.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order of forfeiture dated 19.12.2019 set aside

Orders

  • Decision of the Sessions Court on 19.12.2019 ordering forfeiture set aside
  • Seized assets E8, E9 and E10 released to CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad