What specific offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code was alleged?

Question

Accepted Answer

The alleged offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code was that the seized assets were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under that section.

The prosecution’s forfeiture case was grounded on the claim that the 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery were linked to an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. However, the specific allegation within Section 165 is not spelled out in the available case details.
The forfeiture basis connected the assets to Section 165
The court’s forfeiture order followed the prosecution’s application to confiscate the movable items in favour of the state. The prosecution stated that the seized assets were subject to forfeiture because they were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
No criminal prosecution was instituted under the MACC Act in the forfeiture application
The forfeiture application was made under powers cited as Section 41(1) of the MACC Act, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution told the court the movable property was eligible for forfeiture on the basis that no criminal prosecution had been instituted for an offence under the MACC Act.
The case records do not specify the Section 165 conduct
While the prosecution explicitly relied on Section 165 of the Penal Code as the offence category tying the assets to wrongdoing, the wording of what conduct was alleged under Section 165 is not provided in the case mention details. As a result, the precise offence description under Section 165 cannot be determined from the information stated here.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What specific offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code was alleged?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends