Najib receives DNAA in RM27mil SRC money laundering case
High Court judge Justice K. Muniandy made the order of a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) here on Friday (June 20).
More to come
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
14 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Senior Perak cop's teen murder trial: Defence to revise court submission after prosecution shifts stance
IPOH, July 16 — The defence in the trial of DSP Mohd Nazri Abdul Razak, who is accused of killing 17-year-old Muhammad Zaharif Affendi Muhd Zamrie two years ago, will be filing a new written submission related to Section 300(d) of the Penal Code. Defence counsel M. Athimulan told the High Court here today that they needed to review their previous submissions. 'Our submissions comprised both Section 300(c) and (d) of the Penal Code, but were more concentrated on Section 300(c). However, the prosecution's stand now is that they are relying on Section 300(d). 'This creates a need to revise our entire submissions. In view of that, we are seeking an adjournment to file this new submission, with the court's indulgence, in about six weeks,' he said. The court allowed the adjournment, giving the defence six weeks to file the new written submission, while the prosecution was given four weeks thereafter to respond. Judge Datuk Bhupindar Singh Gucharan Singh Preet fixed October 1 and 2 for the full hearing of submissions from both parties. Deputy Public Prosecutor Afzainizam Abdul Aziz said Section 300(d) was mentioned during the prosecution's opening statement on Nov 5 last year, but the defence's submissions had not focused on that section. 'In our opening statement, we stated that we would be relying on Sections 300(c) and 300(d) of the Penal Code. However, the submissions we received from the defence mainly focused on Section 300(c). 'Therefore, the defence now needs to submit arguments on Section 300(d) as well, to ensure there are no issues if the case proceeds to the appeal stage,' he said when met at the court today. According to the opening statement, Section 300(c) defines murder as an act done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Section 300(d), on the other hand, refers to an act committed with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, even if there is no intention to cause death. The prosecution was conducted by Afzainizam together with Nasrul Hadi Abdul Ghani, while the accused was represented by lawyers Athimulan, Datuk Mior Faridalathrash Wahid and Aiman Hakim Kamaruzzaman. Mohd Nazri is accused of causing the death of student Muhammad Zaharif Affendi near Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) Jati here, between 11.55am and 12.32pm on December 15, 2023. The charge is framed under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which carries the death penalty, or a minimum of 30 years and up to 40 years' imprisonment. If not sentenced to death, the offender shall also be liable to at least 12 strokes of the cane. — Bernama
Malaysia Sun
16 hours ago
- Malaysia Sun
Ireland's data watchdog faces court fight over TikTok penalty
DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights. The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore. In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months. At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review. TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General. TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale. TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43. The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases. Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.
The Star
18 hours ago
- The Star
AGC appeals High Court's dismissal of committal bid against Isham Jalil
KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has filed a notice of appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss its committal proceedings against former Umno information chief Isham Jalil. The proceedings were related to Isham's public remarks under his full name, Hizatul Isham Abdul Jalil, on the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case involving former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Isham's lawyer, Jamie Wong, confirmed that her team received an email with the attached notice of appeal from the AGC on Tuesday (July 15) night. "We received the email along with a cover letter from the AGC at 7.28pm," she said. On July 8, judge K. Muniandy dismissed the committal proceedings, ruling that Isham's comments did not pose a real risk of undermining public confidence in the judiciary. The proceedings arose from statements made by Isham during an interview titled "Townhall for Justice: Keadilan Sebenarnya Untuk Siapa", in which he allegedly made remarks concerning the trial and appeal of Najib in the SRC International and 1MDB cases. The remarks were subsequently published on the Facebook page of The Malaya Post on Sept 30, 2023. The AG contended that Isham's remarks included a challenge to the recusal process involving Justice Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah (now a judge of the Court of Appeal), who had presided over the 1MDB trial in the High Court. The AG further asserted that the respondent's statements had the effect of scandalising the judiciary and were capable of eroding public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial institution. - Bernama
