PHUAH JUN-HOW

PHUAH JUN-HOW

Appellant failed to discharge the burden under section 32(3) to prove lawful entitlement; the investigating officer's reports and the appellant's pending charge under section 39B combined with the absence of credible evidence of lawful source justified forfeiture; therefore the Sessions Court's forfeiture order was correctly affirmed.

Citation
WA-42(ORS)-19-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Phuah Jun-How; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
ORS
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 September 2019
Case Number
WA-42(ORS)-19-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988) / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Forfeiture Order; Judgment Delivered on 02 December 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Burden of Proof, Section 32(3), Illegal Property, Forfeiture Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Forfeiture/confiscation Drugs Law Evidence Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Burden of Proof Section 32(3) +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phuah Jun-How

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of Property) Act 1988) / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Forfeiture Order; Judgment Delivered on 02 December 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant discharged the burden under section 32(3) to prove lawful entitlement to seized funds
  2. 2 Whether the seized funds were the subject of an offence or constituted illegal property
  3. 3 Whether investigating officer's reports and evidence sufficed to justify forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to discharge the burden under section 32(3) to prove lawful entitlement; the investigating officer's reports and the appellant's pending charge under section 39B combined with the absence of credible evidence of lawful source justified forfeiture; therefore the Sessions Court's forfeiture order was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Forfeiture of RM108,207.22 in Public Bank Berhad Account No. 4424921035 to the Government
  • Appeal dismissed and Sessions Court order affirmed