KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 18 — The government is seeking to forfeit funds in accounts belonging to Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and an individual connected to the investigation into the late former Finance Minister, Tun Daim Zainuddin.
The prosecution filed the separate forfeiture notices at the Sessions Court here on November 28 and December 3, naming Ilham Tower and a woman as respondents.
The prosecution is applying for a court order to forfeit to the Malaysian government the funds seized from the respondents’ accounts on May 31, 2024.
The applications were made on the grounds that the prosecution, exercising powers under Section 41(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is satisfied that the seized movable property is liable to be forfeited, even without a criminal prosecution being initiated.
The applicant further asserts that the property was obtained from or is connected to an offence under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009.
During today’s proceedings, deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat informed Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi that the prosecution would apply for a gazette order under Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009 to notify any person with an interest in the property to appear before the court.
The respondents’ counsel, Nizamuddin Hamid, sought an adjournment of the forfeiture application due to related ongoing proceedings in the High Court.
“Those proceedings concern Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act. It relates to the referral of constitutional questions regarding the validity and effect of Section 36 of the MACC Act to the Federal Court.
“There is also an ongoing judicial review, for which leave has been granted, concerning the seizure of the related accounts under Section 37 of the MACC Act,” the lawyer submitted.
Nizamuddin further applied for an interim protective order to prevent the disclosure of the respondents’ names, bank details, account numbers, and the sums involved, to safeguard their banking relationships.
Mahadi argued, however, that the case was high-profile and of public interest, adding that the respondents’ identities were already in the public domain. He consented, however, to withholding the banking details and specific sums.
Judge Azura subsequently granted the interim protective order and fixed February 12, 2026, for the next hearing, at which any third party with an interest in the property will be notified to appear and show cause why it should not be forfeited. — Bernama
