What offence under the Penal Code led to asset forfeiture?

Question

Accepted Answer

Forfeiture of Assets Linked to Offence Under Section 165 of the Penal Code

A total of 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery, seized by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), were officially forfeited to the government following a Sessions Court order. These assets were linked to Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin, the sister-in-law of former Army Chief Tan Sri Muhammad Hafizuddeain Jantan. The forfeiture application was made by the MACC on the grounds that the seized movable property was subject to confiscation.

The prosecution's application for forfeiture, which was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad, was premised on the claim that the assets were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. This section of the Penal Code generally addresses offences where a public servant obtains valuable things without consideration from a person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, or from a person whom such public servant expects to obtain favour from. The MACC initiated the forfeiture proceedings by applying for a court order to publish a gazette notice, calling upon any interested parties to come forward.
Assets Subject to Forfeiture

The specific items forfeited include 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery. These valuable possessions were seized by the MACC from Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin. The forfeiture proceedings were initiated by the prosecution through a notice filed on May 4, seeking to confiscate these items in favour of the government.
Legal Basis for Forfeiture

The forfeiture followed an application by the MACC under Section 41(1) of the MACC Act, read in conjunction with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This legal framework allows for the confiscation of movable property if the prosecution is satisfied that such property is subject to forfeiture. The application was supported by the claim that the assets were derived from or related to an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code, and no criminal prosecution had been instituted for an offence under the MACC Act itself concerning these specific assets.
Court's Decision and Public Notification

Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad granted the prosecution's application for forfeiture, and no third party came forward to claim the seized assets. The court's decision was confirmed by Deputy Public Prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat after the case mention. Prior to this, the MACC had sought a court order to publish a gazette notice, as per Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009, to inform any individuals with an interest in the seized items about the forfeiture proceedings.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What offence under the Penal Code led to asset forfeiture?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends