Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 applies to both civil and criminal proceedings, mandating identification of the public officer in forfeiture actions.

[1] This is an application filed by the applicant to strike out the respondent's notice of motion dated 19 June 2019 and all the related affidavits filed by the respondent in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Criminal Application No: WA-44-128-06-2019 involving a forfeiture action instituted against the applicant pursuant to ss 56(1) and 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFPUAA").

[2] At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the application, and highlighted the primary reasons for the same. This judgment sets out the full reasons for the dismissal.

Key Background Facts

[3] On 19 June 2019, the respondent filed a notice of motion at the Kuala Lumpur High Court pursuant to ss 56(1) and 61(2) of the AMLATFPUAA against the applicant ("the forfeiture action"). The respondent's forfeiture action was registered as Criminal Application No: WA-44-128-06-2019. Essentially, the respondent's forfeiture action sought for an order for the forfeiture of monies in the sum of RM700,000 and all the accrued interest thereon held in the applicant's CIMB current account No 800533xxxx which was alleged to have been obtained or related to the commission of an offence under s 4(1) of the AMLATFPUAA.

[4] At the hearing of the respondent's forfeiture action on 12 July 2019, the respondent sought for an order of the Court for the issuance of a third party notice and publication of the same in the gazette pursuant to s 61(2) of the AMLATFPUAA. This was met with the objection from the applicant which then informed the Court of its intention to file a motion to strike out the respondent's forfeiture action.

[5] On 22 July 2019, the applicant thus filed a notice of motion seeking to strike out the respondent's forfeiture action pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b), (c) or (d), O 41 r 5(1) and (6) and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 and the inherent power of the Court. The applicant's striking out application was registered as Criminal Application No: WA-44-62-04-2019.

[6] Hence the instant application before me.

The Primary Contentions Of The Applicant

[7] The application filed by the applicant may be said to be grounded on two principal arguments. The first is that the forfeiture application by the Public Prosecutor violates s 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 which requires the public officer of the applicant society be named in the suit as the respondent.

[8] The second concerns his complaints about the affidavits affirmed by Allan Suman Pillai, a DPP at MACC, dated 18 June 2019, by Nur Aida binti Arifin, Penguasa Kanan, MACC dated 18 June 2019, and by Tg Mohd Fazree bin Tengku Mohd Faizul ("TMF") Penolong Penguasa MACC, also dated 18 June 2019 (collectively "the Said Affidavits"). The Said Affidavits have been filed in support of the forfeiture action instituted by the respondent under ss 56(1) and 61(2) of the AMLATFPUAA.

[9] The basis of the complaint is the Said Affidavits violate the requirements of O 41 r 6 of the Rules of 2012 ("the RC 2012") against matters in affidavits which are scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive, entitling this Court to strike them out in consequence.

[10] This the applicant argues arose from the affidavit which was affirmed by TMF which disclosed that the investigation was incomplete, as reflected in inconsistent averments in that same affidavit. These included errors in relation to the dates of cheque issuance and the closure date of the corresponding account