What prejudice did the affidavit cause to third-party claimants?

Question

Accepted Answer

The High Court Ruled an Affidavit Caused Prejudice to Third-Party Claimants in the RM114 Million Forfeiture Suit

The High Court has struck out a money trail affidavit submitted by the prosecution in a forfeiture suit linked to RM114 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). This decision was made because the affidavit was filed late in the proceedings, during the submission stage, and was deemed to cause prejudice to third-party claimants, specifically Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Umno. The court ruled that this affidavit could not be used in support of the government's application to forfeit the substantial sum of money and seized jewellery.
Late Filing of Affidavit Without Leave

The prosecution's affidavit was filed after all other affidavits had been submitted and crucially, without obtaining prior leave from the court. This procedural irregularity led to the judge, Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin, allowing the application by the legal representatives for Najib and Umno to strike out the document. The judge explicitly stated that the affidavit could not be considered in support of the government's forfeiture application, effectively barring its use in the proceedings against Obyu Holdings Sdn Bhd.
Prejudice to Third-Party Claimants

The core of the High Court's decision rested on the finding that the late-filed affidavit would cause prejudice to third-party claimants, namely Najib and Umno. By introducing this evidence after the main affidavits were already on record and at the submission stage, the prosecution denied the third parties a timely opportunity to respond or challenge the new information. This late introduction of a crucial piece of evidence, particularly one central to the prosecution's case regarding a purported money trail, unfairly disadvantages those seeking to reclaim the forfeited assets.
Significance of the Striking Out Order

The striking out of this money trail affidavit is significant as it was considered crucial to the prosecution's 1MDB-linked forfeiture suit against Obyu Holdings Sdn Bhd. The prosecution had contended that Umno allegedly maintained a secret, unaudited account for receiving political donations, which they argued contravened the Societies Act 1966. This claim was reportedly based, in part, on the denial of knowledge about such funds by some Umno leaders. The forfeiture application itself sought to seize over RM114 million in cash, along with jewellery, watches, eyewear, and handbags, all allegedly linked to the 1MDB scandal.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What prejudice did the affidavit cause to third-party claimants?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends