Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Pecuniary penalty

  • 17 Sept 2020

    UMNO BAHAGIAN PEKAN & 40 ORS

    Citation
    WA-44-128-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-44-128-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Although the Court found sufficient facts to establish the predicate offence under s.23 MACC Act on balance of probabilities, the applicant failed to prove that the specific RM700,000 seized from the 1st respondent's CIMB account constituted proceeds of that unlawful activity or that those exact funds traced to the predicate offence; therefore forfeiture under s.56 was not justified and the application was dismissed.

  • 24 Jul 2020

    KASITAH BIN GADDAM (NRIC NO. 471018-12-5049)

    Citation
    WA-44-112-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-44-112-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found on the balance of probabilities that the predicate offence (s23 MACC Act 2009) and that DSNR's First Account contained proceeds of unlawful activity, and that statutory freezing and publication conditions were satisfied; however the applicant failed to prove that the specific RM100,000 seized in the respondent's CIMB account was the identical proceeds of that unlawful activity and the respondent was found to be a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration; therefore forfeiture under s56 not ordered and the application dismissed.

  • 25 Feb 2020

    HAMIMAH BINTI IDRUSS

    Citation
    W-09-80-03/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    W-09-80-03/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the abetment charges were not fatally defective because the particulars given were sufficient and the accused was not misled; the prosecution proved abetment by corroborated evidence showing the appellant directed the forgery and benefited from the proceeds; the promissory notes were forged documents capable of inducing SFA and were relied upon by SFA; AMLA offences were proven because the funds derived from that unlawful activity were received by the appellant and s55(2) authorised a pecuniary penalty which the court adjusted to RM6,350,000.00; accordingly convictions and sent…