The exercise of investigative powers by the MACC is not subject to judicial review unless mala fide is established, which the applicants failed to demonstrate.

JUDGMENT

Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J:

The Parties

[1] The 1st applicant is a practising advocate and solicitor and the former Minister of Finance. He was also the treasurer of UMNO from 1984 until his resignation in 2001.

[2] The 2nd applicant is the 1st applicant's wife. The 3rd to 6th applicants are the 1st applicant's children.

[3] The 7th applicant, Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, is the registered proprietor of "Ilham Tower". Ilham Tower is the subject matter of a Notice of Seizure issued pursuant to s 38(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ("MACC Act").

[4] The putative 1st respondent is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, a statutory body established under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, a statutory body established under the MACC Act. The putative 2nd respondent is the Public Prosecutor. Under s 376(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC"), the Attorney General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have control and direction of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings under the Code.

The Factual Background

[5] It is the 1st applicant's case that, prior to joining politics and holding public office, he was a "fairly successful and wealthy businessman". According to the 1st applicant, he had controlling or substantial interests in many public listed companies, which include various premier Banks. His 10% stake in Nestle Malaysia alone is worth approximately RM3 billion.

[6] In short, before he joined politics, the 1st applicant always owned assets and properties locally and overseas since the 1970s through what he referred to as "legitimate business activities".

The Anatomy Of The Pandora Papers

[7] In 2021, an organisation known as the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") provided, to the media outlets, including those in Malaysia, access to leaked confidential files. The confidential files revealed the owners of offshore companies in the jurisdiction, which may be referred to as "tax havens".

[8] The worldwide release became known as the "Pandora Papers".

[9] The offshore companies and assets listed in the Pandora Papers were also linked to the 1st applicant, his wife, and children.

[10] This is how it all began.

[11] On 12 February 2023, the MACC sought and the 1st applicant gave a statement. Nothing happened immediately after that. It was only on 7 June 2023 that Notices, pursuant to MACC sought and the 1st applicant gave a statement. Nothing happened immediately after that. It was only on 7 June 2023 that Notices, pursuant to s 36(1)(a) of the MACC Act, were issued to the 1st to 6th applicants requiring information regarding their assets and sources of income. The MACC also sought information on the assets sent out from Malaysia from 1997 to date.

[12] Section 36 (1)(a) provides as follows:

Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above, if he has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act, may, by written notice:

(a) require that person to furnish a statement, in writing, on oath or affirmation.

[13] Para 2 of the Notices states that the information required is to be furnished within 30 days:

"Pernyataan bersumpah atau berikrar yang tersebut di atas hendaklah diserahkan sendiri atau dengan pos berdaftar kepada saya di alamat yang tersebut di atas dalam tempoh 30 hari dari tarikh penyampaian NOTIS ini kepada kamu."

[14] According to the Notices, the Chief Commissioner of the MACC ("the Chief Commissioner") had reasonable cause to believe that an offence for gratification under s 23 of the MACC Act was committed based on investigations regarding a complaint referred to as No: IPJ/RPTMO: 0145/2023 ("Complaint"). Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act provides that any officer of a public body who uses his office or position for any gr