SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 614

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN HOO ENG – Appellant
Versus
CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-599-12-2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Gurbachan Singh,Noor Harisha ,Respondent Advocate: Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi,Ashreyna Kaur Bhatia

The court upheld that actions taken under AMLATFA orders by a bank, based on legal advice, did not unlawfully deprive a customer of property rights, and the Settlement Agreement barred further claims.

Headnote:(A) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 - Sections 44(1), 50(1), 50(2), 50(3), 52A, 54(1), 56(3), 77 - Dispute over account restrictions and alleged deprivation of property rights - Court examined whether bank's actions complied with AMLATFA orders and if legal advice given was lawful. (Paras 1, 5, 41, 43, 188)

(B) Legal Professional Privilege - The court upheld that legal advice rendered to the bank is privileged and cannot be scrutinized by third parties. (Paras 160, 186)

(C) Settlement Agreement - The court found that the Settlement Agreement precludes further claims by the customer against the bank regarding accretions, affirming its binding nature. (Paras 82, 95)

(D) Res Judicata - The court ruled that the customer's claim for interest is barred by res judicata as it had been previously adjudicated. (Paras 123, 145)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over the bank's freezing and seizure of the customer’s accounts under AMLATFA, which the customer contended deprived her of property rights and interest. (Paras 1, 5, 41)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the bank acted lawfully under AMLATFA orders, and the restrictions imposed were justified to prevent the movement of funds. (Paras 43, 188)

Issues: Whether the bank lawfully froze the accounts, if the Settlement Agreement barred further claims, and if legal advice was protected by privilege. (Paras 41, 82, 160)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the bank complied with its legal obligations, the Settlement Agreement barred further claims, and legal advice was protected by privilege. (Paras 43, 95, 186)

Result: Originating summons dismissed with costs awarded to the bank and its solicitors. (Paras 188)

JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] This originating summons concerns a dispute between a customer and a bank over monies in the customer's accounts that were frozen and subsequently seized pursuant to orders issued under anti-money laundering legislation. The central issues that arise for determination are whether the bank, on advice of its solicitors, unlawfully failed to return or account for alleged accretions and benefits earned on the customer's accounts during the material period when restrictions were imposed, and whether this amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of the customer's property rights. This in turn requires examination of the scope and legal effect of the anti-money laundering orders made, and whether the bank and its solicitors' interpretation of those orders can bind the customer or override her rights to the disputed sums The court is also called upon to consider if the claims are sustainable against the bank's solicitors as a separate party, and whether those claims are properly brought by way of originating summons or are otherwise caught by a prior settlement agreement between the parties. In grappling with these issues, the court must ultimately strive to strike a just and equitable balance between the customer's property rights, the bank's duties and obligations, and the wider public interest in an effective anti-money laundering legislative regime.

Background Facts

[2] Between December 2012 and March 2014, the 1st Defendant ("CIMB") granted the Plaintiff ("Madam Tan") an Overdraft Facility with a limit of RM26,500,000.00 (Account No 8004998003) ("the Overdraft Facility') against Structured Deposits and a Flexi Loan Facility of RM3,500,000.00 (Account No 8005000924) ("Flexi Loan Facility').

[3] In February-March 2014, Madam Tan invested in 7 structured products under account RSP 15971 ("RSP 15971"). Out of the RM26,500,000.00 principal for the structured products (except RSP 118), RM19,600,000.00 was obtained from Madam Tan's Overdraft Facility with CIMB. The structured products, except RSP 118, were assigned, charged and pledged to CIMB as security for the Overdraft Facility.

[4] Pursuant to the terms of the structured products, coupon payments earned would be deposited into Madam Tan's Money Multiplier Current Account No 8004997963 ("MMA") quarterly and half-yearly. The MMA generates interest on the balances.

[5] On 30 April 2014, a first freezing order under s 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFA") was issued by the police to freeze several of Madam Tan's accounts with CIMB, including Fixed Deposit accounts, a Savings Account (No 7031168993) ("SA"), Foreign Currency Current accounts and the MMA. On 15 May 2014, a second freezing order under s 44(1) AMLATFA was issued by the police to freeze Madam Tan's MMA with CIMB. The two freezing orders are referred to together as "the Freezing Orders."

[6] On 24 July 2014, a seizure order under s 50(1) AMLATFA was issued by the police to seize Madam Tan's Fixed Deposit accounts, MMA and RSP 15971 with CIMB ("the Seizure Order').

[7] CIMB admitted that due to the AMLATFA Orders and acting on the advice of its solicitors Shearn Delamore & Co ("Shearn"), the 2nd Defendant, it was prevented from moving, transferring or crediting any "accretions" earned from RSP 15971 and the Fixed Deposit Accounts to the MMA or SA.

[8] Between September 2015 and December 2016, Madam Tan defaulted on repayments under the Overdraft Facility and Flexi Loan Facility. CIMB issued demand letters dated 29 April 2015 and 17 September 2015 terminating the facilities and seeking repayment of the outstanding sums.

[9] CIMB commenced a suit against Madam Tan and obtained summary judgment on 15 February 2016 in Kuala Lumpur High court Suit No WA-22NCC-309-10-2015 ("Suit 309") for the sums outstanding under the Overdraft Facility and Flexi Loan Facility as at 31 August 2015 with interest and costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top