JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, having obtained a default judgment in the sum of RM1,200,000.00 against the defendant, initiated garnishee proceedings in respect of the defendant's bank accounts maintained with CIMB Bank Berhad ("CIMB Bank") and Malayan Banking Berhad ("Maybank"). The present application is brought by the plaintiff, in its capacity as the judgment creditor, seeking for the Garnishee Order Nisi issued against CIMB Bank and Maybank to be made absolute.

[2] Both Maybank and CIMB Bank have confirmed that the defendant holds bank accounts with available funds. However, the garnishee banks have also informed the plaintiff that they are unable to release the said funds due to the existence of a Freezing Order and a Seizure Order issued by the Public Prosecutor under ss 44 and 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLA").

Prevailing Issue

[3] The central issue in the present application is whether the defendant's bank accounts remain subject to a valid and subsisting Freezing and Seizure Orders, and whether such orders continue to be in effect as at the date of this hearing.

The Garnishee Banks' Contentions

[4] The 1st Garnishee, Maybank, in its affidavit in reply to the plaintiff, asserted that it was unable to release the funds in the defendant's account due to a Perintah Pembekuan (Freezing Order) issued under s 44 of the AMLA, dated 3 November 2014, in respect of the said account.

[5] The 2nd Garnishee, CIMB Bank, contended that the funds held in the defendant's account are not subject to garnishment on the basis that the account is the subject of a Seizure Order dated 29 January 2015, issued pursuant to s 50(1) of the AMLA.

[6] CIMB Bank argued that only debts "due and accruing due" from the garnishee to the defendant/judgment debtor may be attached pursuant to the Show Cause Order issued by this court. In light of the Seizure Order, it was contended that no such debts currently exist or are accruing, and therefore, there is nothing capable of being attached.

[7] CIMB Bank further relied on an email from Muhammad Syarafi bin Mahyudin, a Financial Investigator from the Financial Intelligence and Enforcement Department of Bank Negara Malaysia (as exhibited in encl 14: exh "CIMB-3"), which confirmed the following:

(a) The High court of Kuala Lumpur (Criminal Division) had allowed the prosecution's appeal against the judgment debtor, resulting in a conviction and the imposition of a fine; and

(b) Following the said conviction, the Attorney General's Chambers had directed that a forfeiture application be filed in respect of the defendant's account under s 55 of the AMLA.

The Judgment Creditor's Rebuttals

[8] The plaintiff maintained that the Garnishee Order Nisi issued by this court ought to be made absolute in respect of the defendant's bank accounts held with both CIMB Bank and Maybank, on the ground that there is no existing legal or statutory bar under the AMLA or O 49 of the Rules of 2012 that would preclude the attachment of the said accounts.

[9] The plaintiff submitted that both the Seizure Order dated 29 January 2015 relied upon by CIMB Bank, and the Freezing Order issued under s 44 of the AMLA and relied upon by Maybank, have lapsed by operation of law.

[10] The crux of the plaintiff's submissions may be summarised as follows:

(a) Pursuant to s 56(3) of AMLA, a seizure order ceases to have effect after twelve (12) months unless a forfeiture application is filed within that statutory period.

(b) CIMB Bank has failed to produce any credible or admissible evidence demonstrating that a forfeiture application was filed within the prescribed twelve-month timeframe.

(c) The email dated 10 July 2025 from the Financial Investigator merely states that instructions for a forfeiture application have been given, but it does not provide any proof of actual filing or legal effect.

(d) CIMB Bank has not exhibited the original Seizure Order, any v