PUTRAJAYA, Aug 24 — The Court of Appeal has postponed the hearing of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) appeal against the dismissal of its forfeiture suits against eight respondents to allow the Federal Court to decide a related matter.
The three-judge bench consisting of Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, Datuk P. Ravindran, and Datuk Ahmad Nasty Yasin decided to await the apex court’s ruling due on September 30 after hearing initial submissions from both sides.
The MACC was appealing against the High Court’s dismissal of its forfeiture suits over assets allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB.
“I think it would be better to wait for the results of the appeal in the Federal Court before deciding on a date for hearing,” said Mohamad Zabidin, before marking down November 30 as the next hearing date.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Roslan Mat Nor informed the court that the appeal of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) case is set to reach its conclusion at the end of next month.
Roslan said the PKFZ appeal involved similar provisions within the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA), which he said would apply to this appeal.
He then suggested the postponement to avoid the appellate court coming into possible conflict with the Federal Court’s opinions on the related matter.
“The judgement will set the precedent for the AMLA Act, where following the judgement we will set to know where and how to use the law as for now there is no certainty of the law.
“We don’t want to see inconsistency in each court’s judgment, which would not be good for the administration of justice.
“This is to make sure there is certainty in the administration of justice,” Roslan said during submissions.
The respondents present in court through their counsels today include Kedah, Pahang, and central Umno, Habib Jewels Sdn Bhd, K & Z Enterprise Sdn Bhd, MCA’s Women Wing, Binsabi Sdn Bhd, and Perano Sdn Bhd.
This after the High Court had dismissed MACC’s forfeiture suits brought against today’s eight respondents that occurred over several separate proceedings, with most courts citing the prosecution’s failure in proving the balance of probability that the money came from 1MDB to justify the dismissal.