Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freezing orders

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2025

KENG HENG GOLDTECH SDN BHD 1. ) NIKS KB JEWEL 2. ) KEHL EMPIRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG SA SDN. BHD. 4. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG PP SDN. BHD. 5. ) EMAS HARGA KASIH SAYANG SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai EMAS KASIH SAYAN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure to produce documentary bank statements and to comply with express terms of Mareva/injunction and interim preservation orders constituted contempt; directors and officers are responsible for ensuring company compliance; partial or unverified disclosure is insufficient to purge contempt and warrants punishment by fine while custodial sentences were not appropriate on the facts; interlocutory suspension may be granted only on proper application and justification.
24 Apr 2025

KENG HENG GOLDTECH SDN BHD 1. ) NIKS KB JEWEL 2. ) KEHL EMPIRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG SA SDN. BHD. 4. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG PP SDN. BHD. 5. ) EMAS HARGA KASIH SAYANG SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai EMAS KASIH SAYAN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that D15, D17 and Nur Khairunnisa had breached the Mareva ex‑parte and interim preservation orders by failing to fully disclose bank accounts and assets as ordered; documentary disclosure was incomplete or inadequately supported by bank statements and redacted materials. D17 and Nur Khairunnisa obtained suspension of execution of committal pending appeal (lampiran 337 allowed), but D15’s application to suspend (lampiran 365) was dismissed. D15 was punished for continuing non‑compliance by a fine of RM20,000 (reflecting prior remedial opportunities and sentencing precedents); i…
8 Aug 2024

1. ) P. PONNAMAL A/P PONNIAH 2. ) PREMA A/P ACHU 3. ) DEBORAH ANN RODRIGO 4. ) Y.M.CHE ENGKU MAHIRAH BT ABDULLAH 5. ) GOH CHIANG BENG 6. ) ALEXANDER VINCENT 7. ) GEA BAN THONG 8. ) NG GUAT TIN 9. ) KOH KOCK KEANG 10. ) SUPRAMANIAM A/L S SHA

Citation

WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found plaintiffs satisfied first two conditions (good arguable case and assets within jurisdiction) but failed to prove a real risk of dissipation; delay in bringing the application (15 months after suit, 3 months after media reports) and absence of solid evidence of dissipation were fatal; mareva injunction refused.
27 Sept 2023

1. ) 1MALAYSIA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD 2. ) 1MDB ENERGY HOLDINGS LIMITED 3. ) 1MDB ENERGY LIMITED 4. ) 1MDB ENERGY (LANGAT) LIMITED 5. ) GLOBAL DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 1MDB GLOBAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED) 1. ) DATUK

Citation

WA-22NCC-212-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-212-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of the evidence the plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case across pleaded causes of action and provided solid evidence of risk of dissipation arising from prior transfers, incomplete disclosures by the defendant and the liquid nature of assets; delay and reliance on concurrent criminal proceedings did not negate necessity of freezing order; accordingly the Mareva injunction was continued and the defendant's setting aside application dismissed.
7 Sept 2022

TAN HOO ENG 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) TETUAN SHEARN DELAMORE & CO. 3. ) [TIMBALAN ] 4. ) [Ketua Polis Negara] 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCC-599-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-599-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that AMLATFA seizure/freezing orders, read with the Act's broad definition of 'dealing', lawfully prevented transfers that would have produced the alleged accretions; the Settlement Agreement (Clause 3.2) was a clear, final bar to further claims; the claims were also barred by res judicata/issue estoppel given prior litigation; and claims against Shearn failed because solicitors owe no duty to opposing parties in these circumstances and their advice is privileged — accordingly the originating summons was dismissed.
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.
23 May 2021

NEO TIAN CHUAN 1. ASP MUHAMMAD HAMIRIUDIN BIN MOHD RASHID (G19261) 2. Head of Department Commercial Crime Investigation Division Bukit Aman (anti Money laundering, Royal Malaysian Police Force 3. Public Prosecutor

Citation

JB-44-19-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-44-19-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the subject properties are part of an ongoing prosecution in the Sessions Court and section 55 mandates forfeiture orders in prosecutions subject to section 61, the High Court must not usurp the Sessions Court's jurisdiction; therefore the High Court dismissed the applicant's return application with costs.
8 Mar 2021

CIMB BANK BERHAD … (No. Syarikat: 13491-P) TAN HOO ENG … (No. K/P: 571115-07-5758)

Citation

WA-24NCC-541-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-541-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the defendant's Order 18 r 19 strike out/application to stay because the plaintiff's originating summons disclosed an arguable cause: the settlement agreement and related proceedings meant the declaratory reliefs were not obviously unsustainable, the OS was not a collateral attack on the Ipoh order, and committal proceedings are distinct and do not bar the civil declaratory action which was therefore ordered to proceed to full hearing.
1 Jan 1900

PEGATRON SERVICE SINGAPORE PTE LTD (UEN NO: 20130894R) DAN LIM JEN HEE (NRIC NO: 720211-08-5207)

Citation

PA-22NCVC-209-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-209-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on conversion because the only incriminating material was an uncorroborated hearsay email and charges against the defendant do not prove civil liability; the plaintiff produced no evidence of assets within the jurisdiction and no persuasive evidence of real risk of dissipation; accordingly Mareva relief was not justified and the application was dismissed.