Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture of property

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

STAR GRAVITY ENTERPRISE

Citation

NE-87-169-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NE-87-169-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Reading sections 80(3) and 80(4) together, the court retains discretion to order release; the word 'shall' in s80(4) does not mandate automatic forfeiture in all cases. Applying principles of statutory interpretation, constitutional protection of livelihood, and sentencing proportionality, forfeiture would be disproportionate in this case (first offender, sole source of income, guilty plea), therefore the seized lorry must be released under s80(3).
4 Nov 2025

1. ) PRATHAN A/L AH WIN 2. ) MOHD ROSZAIMI BIN MOHD ROOS

Citation

KA-45SOM-1-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45SOM-1-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court upheld an eight-year custodial sentence because the offence under section 26A Akta 670 read with section 34 Kanun Keseksaan is grave, public interest and deterrence outweigh the largely personal mitigating factors, precedent indicates an 8–10 year range for similar offences, and the statutory power to forfeit the vehicle applies.
19 May 2025

SALMAN AHMAD CHOWDHURY

Citation

BA-43-10-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-43-10-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no procedural error in the Session Court Judge's exercise of discretion under section 407(2) CPC; evidence (police report and accused's admissions) established a sufficient nexus between Salman and the seized cash, therefore the forfeiture order of RM723,000.00 (Exhibit P36) was properly made and the review application was dismissed.
14 Oct 2024

1. ) YEO TECK WAH 2. ) CHIEW CHIN FAH 3. ) E KIM LAM 4. ) HEN KAI YANG 5. ) EE SIAU LI

Citation

MC-83-270-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-270-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the seized monies were used or intended for gambling; photographic and witness evidence did not establish a nexus between the seized sums and the gambling offence, reconstruction of the scene was prejudicial, and alternative innocent inferences (salaries/celebration funds) were at least as probable; therefore forfeiture was not justified and the monies must be returned to the respective accused.
8 Feb 2024

MSIM ENTERPRISE

Citation

BD-89-63-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BD-89-63-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The applications for forfeiture were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove an offence under section 57(3) of Act 715; section 57(3) is a penalty provision and does not itself create the criminalising conduct required by sections 80(1),(3) and (4); the statutory four‑pronged test in s80 was not satisfied as the offences charged were under s57(1)(a) and (b)(vi) which are not the criminalisation provisions referenced in s80, therefore forfeiture could not be ordered.
14 Mar 2023

PENUNTUT 1. ) NG PHUI YUN 2. ) CHAN XIN YI 3. ) GIAN KAR MUN 4. ) EE THIAM HUAT 5. ) CHANG CHIN HOW [ ]

Citation

JA-64FOP-31-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-64FOP-31-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found no proven offence under Akta 340 or Akta 234 in respect of E9 and that E9 was not shown to be an illegal property, but claimant failed to produce credible, consistent evidence to prove lawful acquisition or entitlement to E9 (inconsistent statements and unsupported witness testimony). Therefore E9 (RM100,000) was forfeited to the Government.
22 Feb 2022

Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad 1. Anuar Bin Zulkarnain 2. Fara Shazreen Binti Mohd Shafri

Citation

WA-22M-86-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-86-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Default Judgment was properly served and deemed received in March 2019 under the Facility Agreement's service clause; the defendants’ application filed over two years later lacked any cogent explanation for the delay and thus extension of time was refused; the January 2019 letter did not constitute actual notice changing the contractual address for service; detention and statutory forfeiture did not absolve defendants of their independent contractual repayment obligations; accordingly the application to set aside the Default Judgment was dismissed and costs of RM10,000 awarded to the plai…
20 Dec 2021

1. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 2. BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-42(ORS)-1-01/2020 & BA-42(ORS)-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ORS
Case number

BA-42(ORS)-1-01/2020 & BA-42(ORS)-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that s.35 presumption does not apply to s.32(3) Sessions Court claim proceedings; there was no prosecution or forfeiture proceedings under s.8 and no evidence that an offence had been committed in respect of the seized properties; claimants proved lawful entitlement (registered charge/financing) so the Sessions Court forfeiture order was wrong in law and must be set aside, with the seized properties released to the respective banks.
8 Mar 2021

PENDAKWARAYA IRWANZIR

Citation

WA-45SO-19-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45SO-19-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The accused's plea of guilty was informed and unequivocal, the prosecution proved the elements of possession under section 130JB(1)(a) by expert analysis of seized materials, and because public interest and deterrence in terrorism cases outweigh the accused's personal mitigation the appropriate sentence is four years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently and forfeiture of the seized phone and accessories.
27 Jan 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. MOKBUL HOSSAIN 2. MOKBUL ENTERPRISE SDN BHD 3. MD MITHU

Citation

WA-44-322-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-322-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities required by s.56 and s.70 AMLATFA that the seized properties were the subject‑matter, proceeds or instrumentalities of the alleged offences because the affidavits were conclusory and lacked documentary tracing and linkage to predicate offences; therefore the court must refuse the forfeiture order (save for item 1.5 which had already been forfeited).