THE Malaysian government has applied to the Sessions Court for the forfeiture of two bank accounts allegedly linked to investigations involving former Finance Minister, the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, marking the latest legal move in a high-profile probe under anti-corruption laws.
The applications, filed by the Public Prosecutor on Nov 28 and Dec 3, seek the forfeiture of funds held in an account belonging to Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and another account in the name of an individual woman who is under investigation. Both entities were named as respondents in the proceedings.
According to the prosecution, the monies in the two accounts were seized by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on May 31, 2024, and should now be forfeited to the government.
The applications were made under powers conferred by Section 41(1) of the MACC Act 2009, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis that no criminal prosecution has been initiated in relation to offences under the Act.
The prosecution further contended that the assets were obtained as proceeds of, or were connected to, offences under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009.
During proceedings on Thursday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat informed the court that the prosecution was seeking an order for the applications to be gazetted under Section 41(2) of the MACC Act. This, he said, was intended to call upon any third party with an interest in the seized assets to appear before the court and explain why the property should not be forfeited to the government.
However, counsel Nizamuddin Hamid, representing both respondents, said the defence would apply for the forfeiture proceedings to be stayed, citing the existence of a related application currently before the High Court.
He said the pending matter involved an application under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to refer constitutional questions on the validity and effect of Section 36 of the MACC Act to the Federal Court.
Nizamuddin also sought an interim gag order to prevent disclosure of the names of the individual concerned, the banks involved, account numbers and the amounts in question until the application is heard. He said this was necessary to avoid adverse consequences on the respondents’ banking relationships.
Mahadi opposed the request in part, arguing that the case was already in the public domain and of significant public interest.
“This is a high-profile case and the public has a right to know. The names of the respondents have already been reported by the media,” he said.
“We do not object to the disclosure of information relating to the bank and the amount involved; however, the name of the respondent is no longer something that is being kept confidential,” he added. “I do not see any rational basis for preventing the publication of the respondent’s name, but I leave the matter to the court’s discretion.”
Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi allowed the interim gag order to take effect until Jan 28 next year and fixed Feb 12 for proceedings involving the gazetting process and the hearing of any third-party claims. - December 18, 2025
