KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 11 — Malaysia’s anti-graft authorities have quietly clawed back RM900 million from a single company involved in tax evasion, opting for financial recovery over prosecution in what officials say was a pragmatic decision to secure funds for the public purse.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the recovery was achieved through joint action with the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), involving a RM600 million penalty and a RM300 million compound imposed on the unnamed company.

The case has not been publicly announced until now, but Azam said the operation succeeded in returning tax revenue that had been evaded over several years.

“That is just one company, and I cannot name it. There is also another company that was required to pay RM20 million in taxes and an RM8 million compound imposed by MACC, bringing the total to RM28 million.

“This collection was the result of cooperation with the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN), as the company had evaded taxes for several years,” he said in an exclusive interview on the Apa-Apa Saja podcast by Harian Metro at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya recently.

Azam said the decision to pursue compounds and tax recovery rather than criminal prosecution reflected the difficulty of proving that tax evasion was linked to bribery.

“This is difficult for us to prove. Who did the company pay, and when it claims payments were made, investigators must then establish where the money went. In some cases, the funds may have already been spent, underscoring the difficulty involved.

“So it is better for me to choose the path of recovering the money through compounds and repayment of the evaded taxes, although the company will still face other enforcement actions,” he said.

He said enforcement agencies must also consider the broader national interest when deciding whether to take cases to court or to prioritise recovering large sums that can be immediately channelled back to the government.

“If we proceed with prosecution in court, the offender could be sentenced to whipping and fined, and then claim an inability to pay. If it involves a company, the question then arises as to who should be charged — the managing director, the chairman, or members of the board of directors.

“So it is better for us to recover the money and return it to the government, where it can be used for the people,” he said.