JUDGMENT

Nallini Pathmanathan JC:

Enclosure 3

[1] Enclosure 3 is the plaintiff's inter partes application under s. 100 of the Securities Industry Act 1983 and/or O. 29 of the Rules of the High 1980 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for a Mareva injunction against the third defendant, Amir bin Hassan ('Amir') to prevent him from, inter alia ,:

(a) removing from Malaysia assets in Malaysia albeit in his name or otherwise and whether solely or jointly owned up to a value of US$83 million;

(b) disposing or dealing with his assets whether in or outside Malaysia, whether in his own name or not up to a value of US$83 million, or otherwise diminishing their value;

(c) A series of other reliefs designed to make Amir provide full disclosure of any and or all monies that have been forwarded by investors to accounts set up by him or jointly with any of the other defendants.

Outline Facts

[2] The salient facts relating to this matter are comprehensively set out in the submissions filed by the plaintiff at paras 2(i)-(vi) of the plaintiff's written submissions. I do not intend to reproduce those facts here. In brief, the plaintiff contends that the 3rd defendant is involved in an investment scheme 'scam' which was offered through the internet called "Swisscash", which could be located at several different website addresses. As a consequence of investigations undertaken by the plaintiff ('SC') with assistance from its international counterparts, thediscovered, inter alia , that Swisscash claimed to be a sector of the business of the 5th defendant which had allegedly been set up in 1948 in Berne, Switzerland for 48 years before shifting to The Commonweath of Dominica in 1996. This fund allegedly invested in and held itself out as investing in offshore development projects, hedging, equity, high yield investments, commodities and foreign exchange.

[3] Swisscash operated by soliciting the investment of public funds in it, through the medium of the internet. The Malaysian public was targeted for such investments, and the returns from investment in Swisscash were held out to extend to up to 300% within 15 months of investment. These matters are more fully set out in the affidavit of Nortarmizi bin Arshad affirmed on 18 June 2007.

[4] The masterminds behind Swisscash were found to be the first defendant, Lee Kee Sien, Albert ('Albert') and the second defendant, Choo Mun Hoe, Kelvin ('Kelvin') who together with Amir and the other defendants in this suit, utilized the Swisscash scheme to invite investments from the world at large, when in fact no such legitimate fund existed. The funds which were solicited and received with the promise of such high returns were channeled into accounts operated by Amir and the 4th to 6th defendants, with accounts in Jersey, Channel Islands and Hong Kong. Albert is the alter ego of the 4th defendant, the 6th defendant and the 7th defendant.

[5] These monies invested by the Malaysian public, and therefore belonging to them in equity, were also channeled by Amir, Albert and Kelvin into Amir's account at HSBC Hong Kong and from Hong Kong into Albert's personal account in HSBC Bank Hong Kong.

[6] The basis for thecontending that the whole scheme is a fraud or scam includes the following factors:

(i) As stated before, no such legitimate fund as Swisscash exists;

(ii) None of the defendants are licensed or approved by theto carry out any fund management activities in Malaysia. This is in breach of s. 15A of the Securities Industry Act 1983 ('SIA')

(iii) Amir is neither licensed nor approved by theto act or hold himself out as an investment advisor in Malaysia. By so acting, he appears to have breached s. 14 of the SIA ;

(iv) The defendants working together, utilized an unregulated company which existed only on paper and on websites to solicit and induce, inter alia , the Malaysian public to send their monies to accounts as described previously, on the pretext that these investors would enjoy extraordinarily high profits as