The presumption of illegality under the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act does not apply to claims for forfeited property unless explicitly stated; the burden is on the prosecution to prove the properties' illegality.

Table of Content
1. appeal background and seized properties (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellants’ key arguments on legal presumption and evidence (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. investigation quality and evidentiary requirements (Para 14)
4. respondents’ arguments against appellants’ claims (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. inadequate proof of financial sources (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. court’s reasoning on burden of proof (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
7. court's analysis on evidence and burden of proof (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. court's decision to reverse lower court ruling (Para 35 , 36)

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (the "SCJ") dated 21 April 2010 dismissing their claims under s 32(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 (the "DD (FOP) A") to 8 properties seized by the police under s 25 of the DD(FOP)A and ordering that all the 8 properties be forfeited to the Government of Malaysia.

[2] The appellants are husband and wife. The 1st appellant is the husband and the 2nd appellant is his wife.

[3] The 8 properties which were claimed by the appellants are as follows:

(1) The sum of RM3,471.90 in a Public Bank Savings Account jointly held by the 2nd Appellant and her son, namely, Lim Cheng Yee, who is a minor;

(2) The sum of RM8,838.70 in a Maybank Savings Account jointly held by the 2nd Appellant and her daughter, namely, Olivia Lim Li Har, who is also a minor;

(3) The sum of RM10,211.39 in the 2nd Appellant's Public Bank Al-Wadiah Savings Account;

(4) The sum of RM134,000.00 being the money put up by the appellants in order to secure a bond for the temporary release to the appellants of a Mercedez Benz car bearing the registration number WKW9;

(5) The sum of RM44,000.00 being the money put up by the appellants in order to secure a bond for the temporary release to the appellants of a Toyota Alphard motor vehicle bearing the registration number WNW 99;

(6) A Nokia 8800 cell phone;

(7) A Nokia 6108 cell phone; and

(8) Cash in the sum of RM600.00.

(All the 8 properties listed above are collectively referred to as the "seized properties")

[4] In their petition of appeal the appellants have put up 18 grounds of appeal. The 18 grounds of appeal in the appellants' petition of appeal can be summarized and dealt with under the following three broad grounds of appeal:

1) The learned SCJ erred when he applied the rebuttable presumption under s 35 of the DD (FOP) A to claims made by claimants which were referred by the Public Prosecutor to the Sessions Courts under s 32 of the DD (FOP) A;

(2) The learned SCJ erred when he refused to admit relevant and admissible documentary evidence which would have sufficiently proved on a balance of probabilities the financial ability of the appellants to acquire the seized properties through lawful means, to wit, documents marked as ID5, ID13 and ID16 to ID18 at pages 172-180, 226-261 and 264-266 of the Record of Appeal (the "RA");

(3) The learned SCJ erred when, in arriving at his decision to dismiss the appellants' claims and to order the forfeiture of the seized properties to the Government of Malaysia, he failed to consider the admissions of the Investigating Officer (the "I.O.") made during his cross-examination by the appellants' learned counsel that the standard practice adopted by the police in cases under the DD(FOP)A is not to seize cash sums which are less than RM1000.00 because of the difficulty in proving that the money has been obtained through illegal means.

Appellants' Submissions

[5] On the 1st ground, Mr. Chetan Jethwani, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted in his outline submissions and in his oral submissions before the Court that the learned SCJ erred when he followed and applied the decisions of the High Court in three cases, namely, Public Prosecutor v. CIMB Bank Berhad , Public Finance Berhad v. PP , and PP v. Lee Kee Seng & Anor.; [2005] 3 CLJ 349 (the "three cases") and he,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document