KUALA LUMPUR: The government has applied at the Sessions Court to forfeit funds held in bank accounts belonging to Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and an individual under investigation in connection with the case involving former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin.
The public prosecutor filed the notices of application separately on Nov 28 and Dec 3, naming Ilham Tower and a woman as respondents.
According to the applications, the public prosecutor seeks an order for funds in the bank accounts of Ilham Tower and the individual, seized on May 31, 2024, to be forfeited to the government.
The application was made on grounds that, under Section 41(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecutor is satisfied the movable property seized by the MACC is liable to forfeiture, even if there is no criminal prosecution for an offence under the Act.
The prosecutor claims the property was obtained from, or is connected with, an offence under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009.
Deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat told Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi that the prosecution is seeking an order to publish a gazette notice calling on any person with an interest in the property to appear in court, as required under Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009.
Lawyer Nizamuddin Hamid, representing both respondents, said his clients would apply to stay the forfeiture application as there are other cases pending before the High Court.
These include proceedings under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to refer constitutional questions on Section 36 of the MACC Act to the Federal Court, and a judicial review for which leave has been granted, relating to the seizure of the bank accounts under Section 37 of the MACC Act.
Nizamuddin also requested an interim protective order to prevent the disclosure of the names of the respondents, banks, account numbers and amounts involved, to avoid adverse effects on their banking relationships.
DPP Mahadi argued that the case is high-profile and the public has a right to know, but did not object to the non-disclosure of information relating to banks and amounts.
Judge Azura allowed the interim protective order as requested and fixed Feb 12 next year for the next proceedings, where third parties with interests in the property are to appear in court to state why the property should not be forfeited to the government.
