MACC arrests five for fake foreign worker permits
A source revealed that the suspects, aged 20 to 60, were arrested yesterday between 3 pm and 6 pm while providing statements at the Selangor MACC office. Investigations indicate that the group falsified details in their applications to the Selangor Immigration Department between 2023 and 2024.
Magistrate Mohamad Redza Azhar Rezali at the Shah Alam Magistrate's Court granted a four-day remand for the suspects starting today. Selangor MACC director Hairuzam Mohmad Amin confirmed the arrests, noting the case is probed under Section 18 of the MACC Act 2009.
Three other individuals linked to the case were released on RM10,000 bail each with two sureties due to health reasons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Ilham Tower challenges MACC's second seizure over alleged irregularities
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) failed to comply with proper procedure in its bid to seize Ilham Tower for the second time, the High Court heard. Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, the owner of the building, claimed the second seizure notice issued by the anti-graft body failed to adhere to procedures under Section 51(1A) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) 2001. Section 51(1A) of the AMLATFPUAA 2001 requires law enforcement agencies to issue a written notice to the person who owns or possesses any property seized under the Act, informing them of the seizure. The company claimed the MACC also failed to post the notice in a public place as required by law, choosing instead to issue a press statement on the seizure. The company said this in its supporting affidavit to seek leave (permission) to initiate a judicial review to challenge the seizure. "The fourth respondent (MACC) also said that with the seizure of Ilham Tower, all transactions or transfers of ownership involving the building are now prohibited. "This statement is clearly erroneous, as no formal notice was served on the applicant. "The issuance of the second seizure notice is an abuse of process and power. It overlaps the earlier seizure and appears to be an attempt to unlawfully circumvent the 18-month time limit for the first seizure, which expired on June 17. "Although the first seizure notice was issued on Dec 18, 2023, no prosecution or charge has been brought against the late Tun Daim Zainuddin to indicate that the premises are linked to any offence under the MACC Act. "Since the first seizure notice, no evidence has been presented linking the applicant or Daim to any specific offence under the MACC Act 2009, AMLA 2001, or any other law related to money laundering or corruption," the affidavit said. Ilham Tower further argued that the second seizure violates Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, as it deprives the applicant of the right to use and enjoy the property. The company said the seizure has caused a significant loss in rental income, reputational harm as a property owner, and depreciation in the property's value. It added that the prolonged and arbitrary denial of ownership rights – without any charge or prosecution – was not only grossly unfair but also risked rendering the judicial review application futile. Ilham Tower filed the ex-parte application through its legal firm, Messrs Raj & Sach, on June 23. One of the company's directors is the late Daim's wife, Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid. In its application, Ilham Tower named the MACC, its Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, senior officer Mohd Razi Rahhim @ Rahim, MACC deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib, the public prosecutor, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and the government as respondents. The company is seeking a declaration that the order or seizure notice issued by Ahmad Akram is null and void. The company is also applying for a certiorari order to quash the seizure notice and all related decisions or actions. Additionally, it seeks a mandamus order compelling the second respondent – or any officer, employee, agent, or authorised individual under the second respondent – to cancel the seizure notice. Ilham Tower is also requesting a court order to suspend the seizure notice and all related actions or decisions until its judicial review application is heard and decided by the High Court. The company is also seeking damages and costs.
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Grandfather defends parents in autistic child neglect case
PETALING JAYA: The grandfather of six-year-old Zayn Rayyan Abdul Matin testified in court today, insisting his son and daughter-in-law were loving parents who would never neglect or harm their autistic child. Zahari Mohd Reba, 57, appeared as a defence witness in the trial of Ismanira Abdul Manaf, stating that both she and her husband, Zaim Ikhwan, deeply cared for their late son. 'Zayn was my beloved grandson. If either of his parents were not working, I would make sure they came over to spend time with him. He was very close to his parents. I believe my son and daughter-in-law were not involved in his death,' Zahari said during examination-in-chief by defence lawyer Haresh Mahadevan. The grandfather described his grief over losing his eldest grandchild, emphasising the strong bond Zayn shared with his parents. Under cross-examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharudin, Zahari confirmed that Zayn, who was autistic, needed constant care and had a close relationship with both parents. He also agreed that Ismanira and Zaim treated Zayn and his younger sibling equally. On Monday, Judge Dr Syahliza Warnoh ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, requiring Ismanira to enter her defence. Her husband, Zaim Ikhwan, 30, was acquitted of the same charge. The couple had been accused of neglecting Zayn in a manner likely to cause physical harm between December 5 and 6, 2023, near Block R of Idaman Apartment, Damansara Damai, and a nearby river. They faced charges under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' jail, a RM50,000 fine, or both. The trial resumes tomorrow. – Bernama
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Zayn Rayyan's parents would have never harmed him, says grandfather
PETALING JAYA: The grandfather of the late Zayn Rayyan Abdul Matin has told the Sessions Court here that his son and daughter-in-law were devoted parents and would never have neglected or harmed the six-year-old boy. Zahari Mohd Reba, 57, testified during the defence proceedings of Ismanira Abdul Manaf, saying both she and her husband, Zaim Ikhwan, loved their autistic son dearly. "Zayn was my beloved grandson. If either of his parents were not working, I would make sure they came over to spend time with him. "He was very close to his parents. I believe my son (Zaim Ikhwan) and daughter-in-law (Ismanira) were not involved in his death," Zahari said during examination-in-chief by defence lawyer Haresh Mahadevan. The second defence witness added that he was heartbroken by the loss of his eldest grandchild. When questioned by Deputy Public Prosecutor Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharudin, Zahari confirmed that Zayn Rayyan, who was autistic, required constant care and shared a close bond with both parents. He also agreed with the prosecution's suggestion that Ismanira and Zaim treated Zayn Rayyan and his younger sibling equally. On Monday, Judge Dr Syahliza Warnoh ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case and ordered Ismanira to enter her defence. Her husband Zaim Ikhwan, 30, was discharged and acquitted of the same charge. The couple had been accused of neglecting Zayn Rayyan in a manner likely to cause physical harm between noon on Dec 5 and 9.55pm on Dec 6, 2023, in the vicinity of Block R of Idaman Apartment, Damansara Damai and a nearby river. They were charged under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001, read together with Section 34 of the Penal Code. If convicted, the offence carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' jail, a fine of up to RM50,000, or both. The trial continues tomorrow. – Bernama
