KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has fixed November 5 to deliver its decision on an application by the late Tun Daim Zainuddin’s family for leave to initiate judicial review proceedings against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman set the date after hearing submissions from both parties in the case challenging the MACC’s action in seizing and freezing the family’s bank accounts.
Senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan represented the Attorney-General while lawyer Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar appeared for Daim and his family members.
Gurdial submitted that the applicants had established prima facie evidence of abuse of power by the respondents.
He argued the respondents had invoked different statutes to indeterminately prolong the freezing or seizure of properties beyond their investigative powers.
“There are clear triable issues that warrant further argument by the parties at the substantive stage,“ Gurdial said.
Nurhafizza countered that the seizure was part of criminal investigation functions and not amenable to judicial review.
She stated the applicants’ allegations essentially complained the freezing was done without basis and the investigation was politically motivated.
“The applicants failed to adduce compelling and prima facie proof which singularly lead to the inevitable conclusion that the allegations had been proved,“ she argued.
The application filed on June 6, 2024 seeks to set aside the MACC’s actions under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
Applicants include Daim’s wife Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid and their four children Asnida, Wira Dani, Muhammed Amir Zainuddin and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin.
Eighteen companies are also named as applicants including Aad Equity Sdn Bhd, Yayasan Haji Zainuddin and Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd.
In her supporting affidavit, Na’imah claimed the seizure order under Section 44(5) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act should lapse after 90 days since no money laundering charges have been filed.
The family seeks a declaration that the freezing order and all actions taken by the MACC respondents are invalid and void. – Bernama
