How were these luxury items linked to an offence under Section 165?

Question

Accepted Answer

Luxury Items Linked to Section 165 Offence

The 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery seized from Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin were officially forfeited to the government after a Sessions Court judge ruled in favour of the prosecution. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had sought the forfeiture, asserting that the items were obtained in connection with an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. This section of the Penal Code pertains to public servants obtaining valuable items without consideration.
Basis for Forfeiture Application

The MACC's application for forfeiture was grounded on Section 41(1) of the MACC Act 2009, read in conjunction with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution contended that the seized movable property was subject to forfeiture because no criminal prosecution had yet been instituted for an offence under the MACC Act itself. This procedural aspect allowed the commission to proceed with forfeiture based on the alleged connection to another offence.
Allegation of Offence Under Section 165

Central to the forfeiture claim was the assertion that the luxury items were acquired as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. This legal provision addresses situations where a public servant obtains any valuable thing without any consideration from any person, or through or by the exercise of any official function of such public servant. The MACC's argument implied that Nor Shahira Atirah's possession of these high-value items was linked to such an illicit acquisition.
Court Ruling and Lack of Third-Party Claims

Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad allowed the prosecution's application for forfeiture, ordering the confiscation of the Rolex watches and jewellery in favour of the state. Crucially, no third party came forward to claim an interest in the seized assets during the proceedings. This absence of competing claims simplified the judicial process, allowing the court to rule solely on the MACC's application and the alleged connection of the items to an offence.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How were these luxury items linked to an offence under Section 165?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends