Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture of exhibits

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-13-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-13-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the prosecution discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants stored protected wildlife parts and traps with joint intention: prolonged surveillance, corroborated seizure locations, expert identifications, vehicle registrations, and owner testimony established knowledge and control sufficient to constitute 'menyimpan' under Akta 716 without requiring proof of exclusive ownership; circumstantial evidence was cogent and cumulatively pointed to guilt; accordingly defendants were convicted on all counts and sentenced as specified.
19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-11-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applying established authorities, the court found that surveillance, consistent seizure locations within the defendants' occupied premises, expert morphological and DNA identifications, documentary licence checks and the totality of circumstantial evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants stored protected wildlife parts and snares and acted with common intention under s34; exclusive ownership was unnecessary for a conviction under the storage offences of Akta 716, therefore all defendants were convicted on all counts.
19 Feb 2026

1. ) BUI THI NGAN 2. ) BUI VAN NOI 3. ) BUI VAN ANH 4. ) LIM HENG HUI

Citation

CA-62ES-3-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-62ES-3-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the prosecution had proven a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt: the statutory elements of the offences (date/time/place, storage of protected species parts, lack of permit/license, and joint intent under s.34) were established by cumulative circumstantial evidence, surveillance, credible expert identification, documentary records and admissions; the concept of 'menyimpan' does not require exclusive ownership but may be inferred from circumstances; therefore defendants were convicted on all counts and sentenced accordingly.
14 Dec 2023

1. ) LIEVON A/L CHING 2. ) NITTHIRA RATTHANAPHAN A/P PERAT JUN

Citation

AB-41LB-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-41LB-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Magistrate's acquittal because the charge was fatally defective/confusing (mixing s.34 common intention with 'bersubahat' without specifying which limb of abetment under s.107), thereby prejudicing the accused; however, on the evidence that the seized liquors bore 'Malaysia Duty Not Paid' markings and were concealed in the vehicle used to convey them, the Court was satisfied an offence under the Customs Act had occurred for purposes of s.127 and ordered forfeiture of the goods and the vehicle to the Government notwithstanding the absence of convictions.
24 Mar 2023

MOHAMAD RIDHWAN BIN SHA'AMURI

Citation

BF-83-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BF-83-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court accepted guilty plea as mitigating but gave limited discount because offence involved seven gambling machines, lacked licence, and public interest required deterrence; consequently court imposed minimum statutory fine of RM10,000 per machine (total RM70,000) with default imprisonment and an immediate custodial sentence of 18 months from date of arrest, plus a fine for the secondary charge and order for disposal of exhibits after appeal period.
26 Jun 2022

Ku Muhammad Faiz Zahidi Bin Ku Shaharuzaman

Citation

JA-63-40-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-63-40-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the non-violent nature of the repeated but limited dissemination to a single individual, the accused's early guilty plea, first-offender status, youth, difficult family background and absence of reoffending since charge, a fine is proportionate and imprisonment is unwarranted; imposed RM2,000 per count (8 counts) totalling RM16,000 with default custody 3 months per count (aggregate 24 months) and ordered forfeiture of exhibits P8 and P9 to the Malaysian Communications Commission.
26 Jun 2022

Ku Muhammad Faiz Zahidi Bin Ku Shaharuzaman

Citation

JA-63-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-63-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Balancing statutory maximum penalties, mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, youth, family hardship, remorse, limited dissemination and no violence) against public interest and deterrence, the court concluded non‑custodial sentences in the form of fines were proportionate; imposed RM2,000 fine per count (8 counts) totalling RM16,000 with default imprisonment 3 months per count (aggregate 24 months) and ordered forfeiture of exhibits P8 and P9 to the Malaysian Communications Commission.
26 Jun 2022

Ku Muhammad Faiz Zahidi Bin Ku Shaharuzaman

Citation

JA-63-39-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-63-39-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Given the guilty plea, first offender status, youth, family hardship, confined dissemination to a single individual, absence of violence and the public interest in rehabilitation, the court found a non-custodial, proportionate sentence appropriate: fine RM2,000 per count (8 counts) totaling RM16,000 with default imprisonment of 3 months per count (aggregate default 24 months) and ordered forfeiture of exhibits P8 and P9 to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission under s.260 CMA 1998.
26 Jun 2022

Ku Muhammad Faiz Zahidi Bin Ku Shaharuzaman

Citation

JA-63-37-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-63-37-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted guilty pleas and mitigating factors (early plea, first offender, youth, family hardship, remorse, limited dissemination) and balanced them against public interest and deterrence under s233(3) CMA 1998; concluded non-custodial fines were appropriate: RM2,000 per count (8 counts) totalling RM16,000 with default imprisonment 3 months per count (total 24 months) and ordered forfeiture of exhibits P8 and P9 to the Malaysian Communications Commission.
10 Jun 2022

BK-63-4-11/2021 & 11 OTHER CASES (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Citation

BK-63-4-11/2021 & 11 OTHER CASES (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-63-4-11/2021 & 11 OTHER CASES (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Accused convicted on all 12 counts under s.233(1)(a) CMA 1998; sentencing balanced mitigating credit for immediate guilty pleas, remorse and first‑time offender status against significant aggravation (repetitive, malicious obscene transmissions over nine months, deliberate harm to victim, refusal to cooperate leading to arrest warrant); led to imprisonment of 3 months per count (total 36 months) and forfeiture of specified exhibits under s.260(2).