What connection did the prosecution claim between the assets and Section 165?

Question

Accepted Answer

Prosecution Alleged Assets Linked to Offence Under Section 165 of Penal Code

The prosecution asserted that 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery, seized from Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin, were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. This claim formed the basis for the application to forfeit these assets to the government.
Assets Subject to Forfeiture

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had applied for a court order to forfeit the 23 luxury watches and 15 pieces of jewellery. This application was made under Section 41(1) of the MACC Act 2009, read in conjunction with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution was satisfied that the seized movable property was subject to forfeiture.
Basis for Forfeiture Claim

The prosecution's application for forfeiture was supported by the assertion that the assets were directly linked to an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. This section typically deals with public servants obtaining valuable items without consideration. The court ultimately allowed the prosecution's application, and no third party came forward to claim the assets.
Court Order and Outcome

Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad issued the order for the forfeiture of the items to the state. This followed a case mention that had been scheduled for any interested third parties to appear. The outcome was confirmed by lawyer Muhammad Kausar Mohd Khairi, who represented Nor Shahira Atirah.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What connection did the prosecution claim between the assets and Section 165?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends