UK authorities join forfeiture bid on Daim's assets
PUTRAJAYA: Steps to forfeit assets belonging to the late finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, his family and proxies in the United Kingdom have begun, says the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
Chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the agency had also filed applications for the forfeiture of Ilham Tower yesterday.
'On June 5, we have filed for a restraining order on assets in UK worth RM700mil. We have informed the authorities in the UK and yesterday they informed us they have filed the same to their courts.
'This is a new development where the UK authorities agree with our request in Malaysia and the process will be continued at their courts,' he said this at a press conference here yesterday.
'On the defendant's side they have filed for an intervention and the courts have set July 9 for it. This is for case management and the restraining order application remains.
Meanwhile on the forfeiture proceedings of Ilham Tower, he said, it would not be an easy process.
'There is a lot to be done and the documents involved are also quite thick,' he said.
Media reports on June 3 stated that three luxury homes in London were among the seven properties and one bank account said to belong to Na'imah and her family, involving a total value of UK£132mil (RM758.2mil), which were frozen by the MACC.
MACC investigations found that the movable and immovable assets were linked to alleged offences under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) 2001.
Ilham Tower, owned by Daim's family, was first seized by MACC in December 2023 in its anti-money laundering probe involving a corporate transaction of RM2.3bil (US$500mil) in November 1997 involving public-listed Renong Bhd and United Engineers Malaysia Bhd (UEM), both linked to Umno.
In an unrelated matter, Azam said that there was no decision made yet on any criminal charges on former prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob.
'All investigation papers have been forwarded to the DPP and we have been told that they have agreed to file for the asset forfeiture on the monies seized, worth around RM170mil, in the coming two weeks. It is up to him to challenge our application.
'Regarding criminal charges, we are awaiting the DPP's decision. I do not know when they will be but I believe a decision will be made within a month,' he said.
He added that on their end investigations have been deemed completed.
When asked on the role of Ismail Sabri's former son-in-law Datuk Jovian Mandagie in the investigation, he said that he is a witness.
On March 3, Azam had disclosed that Ismail Sabri is a suspect in an ongoing corruption and money laundering investigation following the discovery of approximately RM170mil in cash at a safe house during a raid.
The cash, held in numerous currencies such as baht, riyal, pound sterling, won, euro, Swiss franc and yuan, was seized alongside 16kg of pure gold bars valued at nearly RM7mil.
Additionally, 13 bank accounts containing over RM2mil have been frozen as part of the probe.
The investigation focuses on funding sources and expenditures related to promotional and publicity activities during Ismail Sabri's tenure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
29 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Najib's DNAA appropriate in circumstances of the case — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 29 — In the case of Vigny Alfred Raja v PP [2022], the accused was charged in the High Court for being a member of an organised criminal group, an offence under Section 130V of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. On the day of his trial and before any evidence was led, the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) informed the court that he would not be continuing with the prosecution of the accused as investigations were still ongoing. The DPP requested the court to order a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) of the accused under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The accused's counsel objected and said the proper order should be a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA). The High Court granted a DNAA on the grounds that: (a) the court had no power to order a DAA without hearing any evidence; and (b) under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution, the power to prosecute or discontinue prosecution was vested in the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor (AG/PP). The accused appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA), which affirmed the High Court's decision. The COA ruled that the prosecution had good grounds for asking the court to grant a DNAA as: (i) the trial of the case had not started as no witnesses had been called to testify; (ii) the prosecution could not proceed for the time being as the investigation was still ongoing and they would proceed with the trial when they were ready! and (iii) the High Court was right to refuse an acquittal in the absence of any evidence before the court. The accused further appealed to the Federal Court. At the hearing of the appeal, the DPP informed the apex court that the investigations into the offence with which the accused was charged had been completed and the PP had decided not to proceed with the charge against the accused. The DPP left it to the Court to make what orders it deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Pursuant to Section 254(1) and (2) of the CPC, if at any stage of any trial — but before delivery of judgment — the prosecution informed the court that it would not further prosecute the accused upon the charge the accused should be discharged of the charge. Section 254(3) of the CPC provides that such discharge 'shall not amount to an acquittal unless the court so directs'. The Federal Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It set aside the decisions of the courts below, granting a DAA to the accused. The apex court was, however, divided on the interpretation to be accorded to Section 254(3) of the CPC. Federal Court Judge Zabariah Yusof, who delivered a concurring judgment, ruled that a plain and literal reading of Section 254(3) of the CPC means that any discharge granted by the court under Section 254 is a DNAA. In order for a DAA, it has to be specifically directed by the court. The opening wordings in the section are clear and unambiguous; hence the court must give effect to their plain and literal meaning. The court is vested with the discretionary power to direct a DAA of an accused person pursuant to Section 254(3) of the CPC and that such discretion is to be exercised judiciously. In other words, Section 254(3) does not fetter the discretion of the court in directing a DAA if the circumstances warrant it. (Emphasis added) The facts and circumstances of the case — the prosecution having informed the court that the investigations had been completed and the PP had decided not to proceed with the charge against the accused — warranted and justified that an order of DAA be granted to the accused. Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah speaks to reporters at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex on June 20,2025. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Now, compare the above with the order of DNAA of former prime minister Najib Razak in his final SRC International case involving RM27 million. It must first be said that the circumstances before High Court judge K. Muniandy were different. The DNAA was the most appropriate order given the circumstances of the case. It must be recalled that the prosecution had previously sought the court to grant a further extension to allow for the compilation of voluminous trial documents after indicating it was prepared to proceed with trial, following the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) rejection of a representation submitted by Najib two years ago. The trial had stalled since 2019. Given the circumstances, the learned judge said the rule of law was applicable to prevent such a detrimental situation whereby an accused person was saddled with criminal charges with no outcome for an indefinite and indeterminate period. 'The prolonged wait for trial has become a long haul for the accused person, denying him of a timely resolution,' he said. 'This court is also mindful of the prevailing fact that the preferred charges against the accused date back to the offence being committed in the year 2014, now it is 2025, and the case has not taken off for trial. 'By the virtue of these factors, the most appropriate order is for this court to discharge the accused person without acquitting him so he's not saddled with the charges preferred against him,' he added. More so as unlike in the case of Vigny Alfred Ray, Najib's lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had suggested to the court to grant his client a DNAA in the interest of justice. The order of DNAA was accordingly appropriate — it did not prejudice the prosecution as they would be free to re-charge Najib when ready to proceed with the case while the accused would not be saddled with criminal charges with no outcome for an indefinite and indeterminate period. So why the criticisms against Najib's DNAA? Understand the circumstances of a case. Every case turns on its facts and circumstances. Only then can an order be appropriate or otherwise. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
New claims link six more Sabah politicians to RM3.96m mining licence bribes, raising number to 15
KOTA KINABALU, June 29 — Six more politicians in Sabah have been accused of involvement in the mining licence scandal. A MalaysiaKini report yesterday alleged that among the politicians named are from two local parties. The portal claimed that a source who spoke on condition of anonymity has provided them with screenshots allegedly taken from a video recording involving the political leaders, with the total amount of alleged bribery involving RM3.96 million between the six individuals. The source had further alleged that one of them received the highest amount of RM1.78 million, followed by two who received RM600,000 each. The other three allegedly received RM530,000, RM300,000 and RM150,000. In addition to the video evidence, the source claimed that WhatsApp messages and other documents exist to support the transactions. With the latest development, 15 politicians have been implicated in corrupt activities between 2023 and 2024, in exchange for assistance in processing mineral exploration licence applications. Last week, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said that two state assemblymen and a businessman are expected to be charged later this month. — The Borneo Post
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
MACC faces legal hurdles in global asset freeze pursuit
KUALA LUMPUR: While Malaysian authorities have the legal power to freeze suspected illicit assets through court-issued restraining orders, enforcing those orders abroad is more complex, often requiring separate legal applications in foreign jurisdictions. A legal expert believes the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) may face an uphill battle in its ongoing efforts to trace high-value assets allegedly linked to the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, his family members, and proxies. The challenge lies in cross-border legal procedures, which may require the commission to either file separate court applications in the respective countries or rely on formal mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreements to take action. Former Malaysian Bar Council president Salim Bashir said such restraining orders, issued under Section 44 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA), were typically the first step in freezing assets suspected of being linked to criminal activities. "A Malaysian court order allows enforcement agencies to request mutual legal assistance from the Attorney General's office of foreign countries, where the assets are located, to trace and enforce the order," he told the New Sunday Times. However, he said not all foreign jurisdictions accepedt Malaysian court orders automatically. "Some countries require a separate application to register the local order before any action can be taken," he said. He added that the feasibility of enforcement depended on the country's legal requirements and whether Malaysia had existing mutual legal assistance (MLA) arrangements with the jurisdiction involved. Salim said that although AMLA gave enforcement agencies and the public prosecutor broad powers, they must still convince the court that the assets were tied to unlawful activities. "The standard is based on the balance of probabilities. There must be cogent evidence, and it must be proven to be credible enough to satisfy the court on the need for a forfeiture order against the assets of an individual." He added that any attempt to seize assets — whether local or foreign — must also comply with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits individuals from being deprived of their property except in accordance with the law. Earlier, it was reported that MACC was now expanding its investigation to five additional countries as it tracked down high-value assets linked to Daim, a former finance minister.
