Daim and family seek court order to lift freeze on accounts
Bernama
June 11, 2024 16:42 MYT
June 11, 2024 16:42 MYT
Ex-Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and his family have filed an application seeking leave to initiate judicial review proceedings to compel the MACC to lift the freeze on their bank accounts. - Astro AWANI/Filepic
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and his family have filed an application seeking leave to initiate judicial review proceedings to compel the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to lift the freeze on their bank accounts.
The application was filed in the High Court here on June 6 and will be heard tomorrow before Judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh.
They are seeking an order to set aside the MACC's action in seizing those assets under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) 2001.
In addition to Daim, the applicants include his wife, Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid, and their four children, Asnida, Wira Dani, Muhammed Amir Zainuddin, and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin.
A total of 18 companies are also named as applicants, including Aad Equity Sdn Bhd, Yayasan Haji Zainuddin, Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd, Anchor Point Sdn Bhd, Kangkung Catering Sdn Bhd, Adrihaniz Sdn Bhd, Syarikat Maluri Sdn Bhd, Amiraz Sdn Bhd, Ridana Sdn Bhd, Daan Sdn Bhd, Maya Seni Holdings Sdn Bhd, Magical Zone Sdn Bhd, Permatang Maju (M) Sdn Bhd, Brainstorms Sdn Bhd, Arida Farms Sdn Bhd, Gajah3 Resource Centre Sdn Bhd, Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, and Selidik Jaya Sdn Bhd.
All the applicants named MACC Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Division assistant superintendent Haris Fadhila Sukaime; MACC Anti-Money Laundering Prevention Division director, Datuk Mohamad Zamri Zainul Abidin; MACC chief Commissioner, Tan Sri Azam Baki; MACC; Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim; and the Government of Malaysia as the first to sixth respondents.
They also sought a declaration that the seizure of movable assets imposed by the MACC under Section 50 of the AMLA 2001 and all actions and decisions taken by the first to fourth respondents are invalid and void.
They claimed that it violates their constitutional rights, contravenes the law, is mala fide, and an abuse of legal process and power by the first to fourth respondents.
They further sought an order for compensation and costs to be assessed under Section 44 (6) of the AMLA 2001, general and exemplary damages, costs, and any other orders deemed fit by the court.
-- BERNAMA