FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
TETUAN WAN SHAHRIZAL HARI & CO – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal concerning legal fees from seized funds. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court reversed the lower decision regarding lawful ownership of seized properties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. importance of written grounds for establishing judicial precedents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
[1] This appeal concerns a claim by a law firm for its legal fees to be paid from money that has been seized under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("the Act").
[2] Having given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties, both written and oral, we dismissed the appeal by a majority decision. My learned sister Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and I were in favour of dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal whilst my learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan was in favour of allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. These then are the majority grounds of decision.
[3] The facts are simple and straightforward. On 9 June 2016, a police investigation was carried out against one Amar Asyraf bin Zolkepli ("Amar") for offences under ss 12
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.