JUDGMENT

Choo Kah Sing JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal filed by Rosalind Tan Kheng Suan ("the appellant") who was the applicant at the court below in a judicial review application. The appellant sought for an order of certiorari to quash four Notices (release of property seized) dated 3 September 2021 ("the Notices of Release") which were issued by the 5th respondent, who was the investigating officer ("the IO"), with the consent of the 2nd respondent, who was the Deputy Public Prosecutor ("the DPP"), pursuant to s 60(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFPUAA" / "Act 613"). In effect, the appellant sought to quash the decisions of the IO and the DPP in issuing the Notices of Release and the instructions therein (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the decision").

[2] On 30 January 2023, the learned High court judge dismissed the appellant's judicial review application with costs of RM5,000.00. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High court judge, the appellant filed an appeal to the court of Appeal. After having considered the submissions, orally and in writing, of the parties' respective counsels, this court now set out the reasons for our decision which appears below.

Salient Background Facts

[3] The appellant was investigated by the police for allegedly having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust pursuant to a police report lodged against the appellant by her former employer, Penang Medical College Sdn Bhd ("PMC").

[4] During the course of police investigations, the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Harris Ong Bin Mohd Jeffery Ong, was satisfied that four accounts and other accounts kept and maintained by the appellant with CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad ("CIMB") were the subject matter of an offence under subsection 4(1) of Act 613, or evidence in relation to the commission of such offence or terrorist property or the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the instrumentalities of an offence. Hence, the said Deputy Public Prosecutor exercised his power under s 50(1) of Act 613 to issue four separate seizure orders (all dated 8 December 2020) ("the seizure orders") and ordered that all the accounts, including the four accounts, be seized by the investigating officer, and further ordered that CIMB not to part with, deal in, or otherwise dispose of such movable property or any accretion to it, in whole or in part until the seizure orders were otherwise varied or revoked.

[5] The four accounts which are the subject matter of dispute in the judicial review application are stated as below ("the four accounts"):

[6] Whilst the police investigations were ongoing, PMC filed a civil action against the appellant via civil suit No: PA-22NCVC-31-02/2021 ("Suit 31") at the High court of Penang to recover from the appellant the sum of RM4,331,400.81. On 22 February 2021, PMC obtained a Mareva Injunction order against the appellant's assets, and the four accounts were, among others, listed as part of the items to be frozen in the Mareva Injunction order.

[7] After the seizure orders were issued, the appellant was not charged with any criminal offence. On or around 21 December 2021, the appellant was notified by CIMB in writing that pursuant to the Notices of Release issued by the Royal Police of Malaysia ("PDRM"), CIMB was instructed to release a total sum of RM685,209.21 from the four accounts to PMC. CIMB acted according to the instruction as per the Notices of Release. CIMB did not notify the appellant prior to the release of the said sum to PMC. The said Notices of Release were dated 3 September 2021.

The Appellant's Complaints

[8] The appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the IO and DPP in that the appellant was not notified of the Notices of Release before they were issued, nor was the appellant extended a copy of the Notices of Release after they were issued. The appellant has been deprived of her right to challenge the Notices of Release in addit