The Kuala Lumpur High Court today set Feb 14 to hear MACC’s suit to forfeit RM628,314 from well-known textile distributor, Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd, where the said funds were alleged to be laundered from troubled sovereign wealth fund 1MDB.
Judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin also fixed Feb 21 to allow third parties with interest to come to court and stake their claim from RM835,258.19, RM170,000 and RM3 million that the antigraft body seeks to forfeit in similar 1MDB-linked legal action against Pahang MCA, Gerakan Belia Gagasan 1Malaysia, and information technology service provider AGA Touch (M) Sdn Bhd.
The court allowed deputy public prosecutor Farah Yasmin Salleh’s application for a hearing date of the 1MDB forfeiture suit against Jakel Trading, following the non-presence of any third party in court today to claim any part of the RM628,314 that the government seeks to forfeit from the textile firm.
Section 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 empowers the court to allow an application to publish a notice in the gazette to call on any third party who claims to have an interest in the property to attend before the court on the date specified in the notice and to show cause as to why the property shall not be forfeited.
Counsel Thevini Nayagam appeared for Jakel Trading in the open court proceedings today.
In the same court, Jamil also allowed Farah’s application for third-party notices to be gazetted in relation to the 1MDB forfeiture suits against Pahang MCA, Gerakan Belia Gagasan 1Malaysia and AGA Touch, following no objections being raised by their counsel.
Lawyers Ben Chan, Tabian Tahir and Fatin Najwa Ahmad Zainul appeared for Pahang MCA, Gerakan Belia Gagasan 1Malaysia and AGA Touch respectively.
Earlier during proceedings, Chan raised an objection to the prosecution’s application to gazette a third-party notice against his client as he argued that the third-party notice can only be made after the court has made a decision on the main 1MDB forfeiture suit.
However, following clarification from Jamil who pointed out a Court of Appeal ruling that stated the procedure was for the third-party notice to come first before the hearing of the main forfeiture suit, Chan then agreed to the gazetting of the third party notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.