What did Section 165 of the Penal Code mean for the case?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 165 of the Penal Code was the offence linked to the forfeiture of the seized watches and jewellery
Section 165 of the Penal Code provided the alleged criminal basis that the prosecution said was connected to the 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery seized by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) from Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin. In court, the prosecution relied on its forfeiture application by arguing that the assets were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165, so the items were liable to be forfeited to the government. Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad later ordered the items be confiscated in favour of the state after allowing the prosecution’s application.
The court used Section 165 as the alleged link for “obtained” assets
The prosecution’s forfeiture case rested on its claim that the seized movable property was obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. That asserted connection was presented to support the view that the items were subject to forfeiture under the MACC Act framework used in the case. Deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat said the court allowed the prosecution’s application, and no third party came forward to claim the assets.
The forfeiture application pointed to Section 41(1) of the MACC Act and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The prosecution sought forfeiture under Section 41(1) of the MACC Act 2009, read with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was made on the basis that the movable property seized by MACC was subject to forfeiture, and it was framed around the prosecution’s satisfaction that the assets were linked to an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. The prosecution also noted that no criminal prosecution had been instituted for an offence under the MACC Act.
The gazette notice process was used to invite any third-party claims
Before the forfeiture outcome, the MACC applied for a court order to publish a gazette notice calling on any persons with an interest in the seized items to appear in court, using Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009. On May 4, the prosecution filed the notice seeking forfeiture of the 23 luxury watches and 15 pieces of jewellery. At the case mention where the forfeiture was confirmed, there was no third-party claim to the assets.
The final order resulted in the watches and jewellery being confiscated to the state
After Judge Rosli Ahmad’s order, the 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery were officially forfeited to the government. Both the deputy public prosecutor and Nor Shahira Atirah’s lawyer confirmed the outcome following the court’s decision. The case was scheduled for attendance of any interested third parties, but none came forward.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What did Section 165 of the Penal Code mean for the case?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends