Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide third party claims

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

GOOI & AZURA 1. ) 2. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) TAN LIANG KEAT 4. ) LIM KAH HENG 5. ) NG POH WENG 6. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 7. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS

Citation

WA-42(Ors)-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

WA-42(Ors)-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court refusal to allow the Perayu to intervene: the seized assets were held to be proceeds of unlawful activity or otherwise subject to disposal under AMLATFA/section 407 read with AMLATFA; where a liquidator has been appointed the appropriate remedy for claims against company assets is to file proof of debt in the liquidation; AMLATFA and its procedural scheme govern disposal and section 407 does not afford the Perayu the relief sought.
17 Apr 2025

KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH

Citation

W-05-353-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-353-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the High Court correctly applied s56 AMLATFPUAA 2001: the Honda CRZ was either an instrumentality of drug trafficking and/or the cash was proceeds of an unlawful activity (drug trafficking); s56 does not require conviction of a predicate serious offence; investigatory and cautioned statements were admissible under s71/s40; the third party failed to prove bona fides, therefore the forfeiture order was properly granted.
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)

Judge Mary Lim held that the appellant is a bona fide third party who met the burden on a balance of probabilities to show cause why RM398,722 should not be forfeited; section 61(4) conditions apply to claims for return of seized property and do not bar a third party from showing cause against forfeiture of a claimed interest; absent challenge to invoices or evidence, counsel's legitimate interest in unpaid fees may be protected and the High Court order reinstating the appellant's claim was correct; Court of Appeal erred in holding no legitimate legal interest and in excluding payment of lega…
29 Sept 2020

Deputy Public Prosecutor Amar Asyraf bin Zolkepli PIHAK KETIGA Public Islamic Bank Berhad PENCELAH Messr Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co

Citation

C-05-573-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

C-05-573-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that legal fees cannot be paid out of property seized as proceeds of an unlawful activity under the Act because the Act contains no express provision permitting such use, doing so would defeat the Act's purpose, and unpaid legal fees create only a personal (in personam) claim not a proprietary interest under section 61(4); consequently the intervener was not a bona fide third party and the High Court order allowing payment of RM 398,722.00 was set aside.

Malaysia Case Law

GOOI & AZURA 1. ) 2. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) TAN LIANG KEAT 4. ) LIM KAH HENG 5. ) NG POH WENG 6. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 7. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS

KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH

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

Deputy Public Prosecutor Amar Asyraf bin Zolkepli PIHAK KETIGA Public Islamic Bank Berhad PENCELAH Messr Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co