Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party claims

Legal area

Court

26 Apr 2024

Troy Information Technology Malaysia Sdn Bhd Heitech Padu Berhad

Citation

WA-12ANCC-54-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-54-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the plaintiff established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: the defendant's affidavit in reply was filed out of time without leave and was rightly excluded; the defendant's own correspondence amounted to admissions of the debt; the payment condition in the undated unstamped hardware maintenance agreement was an afterthought and, if relevant, imposed an obligation on the defendant to obtain the end user report; the defendant's separate claim against Nissen was unrelated. Therefore summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dism…
14 Dec 2023

GENNEVA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA Dato Vengadasalam Letchumi Kandan

Citation

W-09-200-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-200-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that third party adjudication under s.61 is ancillary to and contingent upon the prosecution first establishing that the seized properties are forfeitable under ss.55/56; the High Court erred in remitting third party claims without first deciding the prosecution's appeal on the forfeiture application. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the Court directed the High Court to first hear the prosecution's appeal; only if that appeal succeeds shall third party claims be remitted to the Sessions Court for adjudication under the Act.
14 Dec 2023

Genneva Sdn Bhd Tetuan Gooi & Azura

Citation

W-09-205-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-205-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that third party claims under s.61 cannot be adjudicated before the prosecution establishes that the seized properties are forfeitable and a preliminary forfeiture order is made; the High Court erred by remitting respondents' claims to the sessions court following dismissal of the forfeiture application and its order to remit is set aside; the proper sequence requires the High Court to first determine the prosecution's appeal on forfeiture before ancillary s.61 proceedings are engaged.
14 Dec 2023

GENNEVA SDN BHD 1. ) Tan Poh Tiang @ Tan Poh Tin 2. ) Ting Sung Tiing

Citation

W-09-204-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-204-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Prosecution must first establish on the balance of probabilities that the seized properties are forfeitable under ss.55/56; only then does the mechanism under s.61 (publication of notice and ancillary adjudication of third party claims) engage; the High Court erred in remitting third party claims after the sessions court dismissed the forfeiture application; appeal allowed and remittal order set aside.
22 Jun 2022

Tetuan Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

05(L)-101-09/2020(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

L
Case number

05(L)-101-09/2020(C) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is dismissed: a law firm is not entitled, merely by producing bills and showing it represented the defendant, to payment of legal fees from property which is the proceeds of an unlawful activity; a third-party claimant must prove all the cumulative elements of section 61(4) on the balance of probabilities; unwritten appellate decisions do not bind lower courts; section 44 freezing provisions do not authorize payment in forfeiture proceedings; permitting payment would defeat the Act's object of preventing beneficiaries of unlawful proceeds from enjoying them.
6 Dec 2021

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD [Company No.: 3813-K] 1. ) KUMPULAN LIZIZ SDN BHD [Company No.: 72218-M] 2. ) LIEW AH KAU [Identity Card No.: 520803055179] 3. ) GHAZALI BIN ABDUL HALIM [Identity Card No.: 550520025137] PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) DSE CONSTRUC

Citation

AA-22NCC-12-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCC-12-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused summary judgment and striking out because the material disclosed credible allegations that the bank's role went beyond passive lender (assignment, irrevocable instructions, powers of attorney and agency features), and there were substantial disputes of fact — alleged diversion of contract proceeds, alleged misrepresentations (PAJ arrangement) and potential breaches of statutory/ fiduciary duties — which required full trial and could not be resolved on affidavit evidence; allegations of fraud undermine reliance on conclusive evidence clauses and a certificate of indebtedness;…
11 Dec 2019

JJ POWER GROUPS ENTERPRISE & 32 OTHERS

Citation

WA-44-79-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-79-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the JJPTR scheme involved cheating (s420 Penal Code) and that most seized accounts, the property and two vehicles were proceeds or evidence of money laundering under s4(1)(a) AMLATFPUAA; there were no purchasers in good faith; accordingly orders of forfeiture were made except for the 17th respondent's Malayan Banking account which did not contain the sequestered funds and was returned; third party claims for legal fees failed for lack of proprietary interest.

Malaysia Case Law

Troy Information Technology Malaysia Sdn Bhd Heitech Padu Berhad

GENNEVA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA Dato Vengadasalam Letchumi Kandan

Genneva Sdn Bhd Tetuan Gooi & Azura

GENNEVA SDN BHD 1. ) Tan Poh Tiang @ Tan Poh Tin 2. ) Ting Sung Tiing

Tetuan Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD [Company No.: 3813-K] 1. ) KUMPULAN LIZIZ SDN BHD [Company No.: 72218-M] 2. ) LIEW AH KAU [Identity Card No.: 520803055179] 3. ) GHAZALI BIN ABDUL HALIM [Identity Card No.: 550520025137] PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) DSE CONSTRUC

JJ POWER GROUPS ENTERPRISE & 32 OTHERS