KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian government has filed an application at the Sessions Court seeking the forfeiture of funds seized from bank accounts belonging to Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and an individual, in connection with investigations linked to former finance minister the late Tun Daim Zainuddin.
The application was filed by the prosecution through two separate notices on November 28 and December 3, naming Ilham Tower and a woman as respondents in the proceedings.
According to court documents, the prosecution is seeking an order for the funds seized on May 31, 2024, to be forfeited to the Malaysian government. The application was made under Section 41(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The prosecution stated that it is satisfied that the movable property seized by the MACC is liable to forfeiture, even in the absence of any criminal prosecution under the MACC Act at this stage.
It was alleged that the funds were obtained from or are linked to an offence under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009, which relates to asset declaration requirements.
During today’s proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat informed Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi that the prosecution is also seeking an order to gazette a public notice calling upon any third party with an interest in the seized property to appear before the court.
The application for gazettement was made pursuant to Section 41(2) of the MACC Act, allowing interested parties to show cause as to why the funds should not be forfeited to the government.
However, counsel for the respondents, Nizamuddin Hamid, requested that the forfeiture proceedings be stayed, citing ongoing related cases before the High Court that could have a bearing on the present application.
He said the High Court proceedings include an application under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to refer constitutional questions regarding the validity and effect of Section 36 of the MACC Act to the Federal Court.
In addition, Nizamuddin said judicial review proceedings had been initiated, with leave granted, challenging the seizure of the related bank accounts under Section 37 of the MACC Act.
The defence also applied for an interim protection order to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information, including the names of the respondents, the banks involved, account numbers and the amounts in question, citing potential adverse effects on banking relationships.
While Mahadi argued that the case was of high public interest, he did not object to withholding information relating to the banks and monetary values.
Judge Azura allowed the interim protection order and fixed February 12, 2026, for proceedings to allow interested third parties to appear and explain why the seized funds should not be forfeited.