1MDB scandal: Prosecution's application to stay order for return of property dismissed

Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan made the ruling after hearing submissions from the prosecution as the applicant and lawyers representing the respondents.

The respondents, besides Najib, Rosmah and their sons. Nor Ashman Razak and Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz (Rosmah's son), are Senijauhar Sdn Bhd, Aiman Ruslan, Goh Gaik Ewe, Roger Ng Chong Hwa (former Goldman Sachs bank officer) and wife Lim Hwee Bin.

"I do not see any reasonable grounds for this application, so I reject the prosecution's application to stay the execution of the order for the return of the property," said the judge.

On Nov 8 last year, Judge Mohamed Zaini ordered items ,including handbags of various brands, 27 vehicles and cash in various currencies that were seized for allegedly linked to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, not to be forfeited to the Malaysian government.

Earlier, deputy public prosecutor Harris Ong Mohd Jeffery Ong submitted that the prosecution had applied for an adjournment since the appeal against the forfeiture decision was being heard at the Court of Appeal.

"The Court of Appeal has set Sept 6 for case management and the prosecution is still waiting for the appeal record.

"I request the court to consider ... we have filed an appeal within the time frame, so we still have jurisdiction over the seized items until the case is decided by the Court of Appeal," he said.

Lawyer Datuk Tan Hock Chuan, representing Roger Ng and his wife, informed the court that his clients had been allowed direct access to their bank accounts at Maybank (Plaza Damansara branch) and RHB Bank (Bangsar Shopping Centre Office Tower branch) following a suit they filed against the two banks.

He said he did not know if there was still money in the accounts since the two banks had allowed Ng and his wife direct access to their accounts since last April.

Meanwhile, lawyers Mardhiyah Siraj and Azamuddin Aziz, representing Najib, Riza Shahriz and Nor Ashman, requested the court to dismiss the prosecution's application for stay the order for the return of their property on the grounds that there were no special circumstances permitting the stay.

They said that the 12-month seal order on the property had also expired.