Why was forfeiture allowed despite no third-party claim?

Question

Accepted Answer

Forfeiture was allowed because the court accepted the prosecution’s MACC Act basis for forfeiture when no interested third party appeared to claim the seized items
Forfeiture of 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery was allowed after a Sessions Court order by Judge Rosli Ahmad, directing the items be confiscated in favour of the state. Deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat said no third party came forward to claim the assets during the scheduled case mention for attendance of any interested parties. The prosecution had also obtained a court order to publish a gazette notice calling on any persons with an interest to appear in court, and the forfeiture application proceeded on the ground that no criminal prosecution had been instituted under the MACC Act.
The court order relied on the prosecution’s forfeiture application
The Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad allowed the prosecution’s application to forfeit the seized items to the government. The outcome was confirmed by lawyer Muhammad Kausar Mohd Khairi, who represented Nor Shahira Atirah. The prosecution’s request was treated as a court matter in which interested parties were given an opportunity to come forward.
The MACC Act 2009 framework was used because no MACC Act prosecution had been instituted
The prosecution applied under powers conferred by Section 41(1) of the MACC Act 2009, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was made on the grounds that the movable property seized by the MACC was subject to forfeiture because no criminal prosecution had been instituted for an offence under the Act. In practical terms, the prosecution sought forfeiture through the court process rather than through an active criminal prosecution under the MACC Act.
A gazette notice was published to give third parties a chance to appear
Before the forfeiture was decided, 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. This step was done pursuant to Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009. The purpose was to formally notify potential interested parties, and for today’s case mention, the matter was scheduled for their attendance if any interest existed.
The prosecution linked the seized assets to an alleged Penal Code offence
When filing the notice on May 4, the prosecution sought forfeiture of the 23 luxury watches and 15 pieces of jewellery seized from Nor Shahira Atirah to the government. The prosecution’s position was that it was satisfied the assets were subject to forfeiture, and it supported this by claiming the assets were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. With no third party claiming an interest after the gazette process, the court proceeded with the forfeiture order.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why was forfeiture allowed despite no third-party claim?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends