Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Seizure and freezing of assets

Legal area

Court

26 Apr 2024

AZMI BIN ALANG AHMAD (menyaman untuk dirinya sendiri dan dalam kapasiti perwakilannya untuk dan bagi manfaat keseluruhan kelas orang-orang yang telah mendepositkan wang kepada MGSB Berhad) 1. ) SITI WAKI'AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dal

Citation

WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Defendant's striking‑out application was allowed because the Plaintiff failed to plead a reasonable cause of action against her: there was no causal link between the 1st Defendant's statutory investigative acts and the Plaintiff's alleged loss and no evidence she acted other than in good faith; statutory immunities under Section 87 Central Bank Act 2009 and Section 77 AMLA therefore bar the claim.
4 Mar 2024

1. ) DR CHE ABDUL DAIM BIN HAJI ZAINUDDIN 2. ) NA'IMAH BINTI ABDUL KHALID 3. ) ASNIDA BINTI ABDUL DAIM 4. ) MD WIRA DANI BIN ABDUL DAIM 5. ) MUHAMMED AMIR ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 6. ) MUHAMMED AMIN ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 7. ) ILHAM TOWER SDN BHD 1.

Citation

WA-25-8-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-8-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave for judicial review was refused because as a general rule investigative acts in the course of criminal investigations are not amenable to judicial review absent compelling prima facie evidence of mala fide; applicants failed to establish mala fide or any other recognised ground to justify review and must instead raise challenges in the criminal forum; therefore no arguable case for leave existed.
3 Jan 2018

1. SIMPLEX SDN BHD. 2. LIM CHEE SON @ LIM CHEE SON 3. SIEW LAI LING 4. HUA KIA PAH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

W-09-15-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-15-01/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Respondent failed to prove a causal nexus between the alleged predicate offence under s135(1)(g) Customs Act 1967 (Jan 2010–Dec 2011) and the seized funds; appellants produced unchallenged documentary evidence that the seized funds originated from a 2.5.2014 sale of non‑dutiable goods and the partial release of funds (RM55,000) further undermined the forfeiture claim. On the correct standards (predicate offence beyond reasonable doubt where required; forfeiture on balance of probabilities), forfeiture under s56 Act 613 was not justified and the High Court order was set asid…

Malaysia Case Law

AZMI BIN ALANG AHMAD (menyaman untuk dirinya sendiri dan dalam kapasiti perwakilannya untuk dan bagi manfaat keseluruhan kelas orang-orang yang telah mendepositkan wang kepada MGSB Berhad) 1. ) SITI WAKI'AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dal

1. ) DR CHE ABDUL DAIM BIN HAJI ZAINUDDIN 2. ) NA'IMAH BINTI ABDUL KHALID 3. ) ASNIDA BINTI ABDUL DAIM 4. ) MD WIRA DANI BIN ABDUL DAIM 5. ) MUHAMMED AMIR ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 6. ) MUHAMMED AMIN ZAINUDDIN BIN DAIM 7. ) ILHAM TOWER SDN BHD 1.

1. SIMPLEX SDN BHD. 2. LIM CHEE SON @ LIM CHEE SON 3. SIEW LAI LING 4. HUA KIA PAH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR