Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Seizure of assets

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2023

MD NAWI BIN AB AZIZ

Citation

DA-44-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-44-35-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Seizure order dated 7/2/2020 lapsed on 7/2/2021 under s52A because no charge was properly laid within 12 months and no s56(1) forfeiture application was instituted; a warrant of arrest does not equate to being 'charged' for s52A purposes and absence of written sanction under s93 shows proceedings were not validly instituted, therefore the seized accounts must be released to the applicant.
9 Dec 2021

PENDAKWARAYA NICOLAS KEE MA

Citation

CB-45SOM-4-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45SOM-4-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case that the accused obtained a benefit from migrant smuggling under s.26D because there was no credible evidence linking the seized RM2,100 or any other funds to a benefit derived by the accused from the smuggling; the RM5,000 payment was shown to have been handed to a third party and there was insufficient evidence the accused received or retained any profit. Although the accused was present and had knowledge, absence of proof of actual benefit defeated the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal under s.180 CPC.
28 Jan 2020

GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. TIO JIT HONG (NO. K/P: 570226-04-5151) 2. CHAN WENG SUNG (NO. K/P: 741229-10-5109) 3. FONG MING JING (NO. K/P: 620202-05-5526) 4. KOH NGAT HOON (NO. K/P: 640209-10-5440) 5. LEE YEE YOONG (NO. K/P: 770507-14-5841)

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCC)-542-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCC)-542-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly entered because the plaintiffs demonstrated clear and undeniable claims supported by documentary evidence and payments; the defendant's conduct (accepting payments/partial gold) constituted acceptance of offers despite CPO wording; the plaintiffs had obtained Public Prosecutor consent under s54(3) AMLA so the claims were not statutorily barred; and there was no inordinate unexplained delay amounting to laches — consequently there were no triable issues and the High Court judgment awarding restitution and interest was affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

MD NAWI BIN AB AZIZ

PENDAKWARAYA NICOLAS KEE MA

GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. TIO JIT HONG (NO. K/P: 570226-04-5151) 2. CHAN WENG SUNG (NO. K/P: 741229-10-5109) 3. FONG MING JING (NO. K/P: 620202-05-5526) 4. KOH NGAT HOON (NO. K/P: 640209-10-5440) 5. LEE YEE YOONG (NO. K/P: 770507-14-5841)