Cimb Bank Berhad v Tan Hoo Eng (A-05-203-05/2021)

(No. Syarikat 13491-P)

... PERAYU-PERAYU [DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN] PERMOHONAN JENAYAH ΝΟ: ΑΑ-44-1-01/2020 Dalam perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Dalam perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Ipoh Perbicaraan Jenayah No.: AA- 62K-(37-38)-10/2017, AA-62K-(39- 45)-10/2017, AA-62K-(114-122)- 12/2017 dan AA-62K-(201-209)- 08/2019; Dan Dalam perkara Artikel 5, 8 dan 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 3, Seksyen 44(1), Seksyen 50(1), Seksyen 52A, Seksyen 56(1) & 56(3), Seksyen 93 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 ("AMLA"); Dan Dalam perkara Perintah-Perintah Pembekuan di bawah Seskeyn 44(1) AMLA bertarikh 30.4.2014 dan 15.5.2014; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah-Perintah Penyitaan di bawah Seksyen 50(1) AMLA bertarikh 24.7.2014; Dan Dalam perkara Seskeyn 4 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 278 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 8.1.2021 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah dalam No. Permohonan Jenayah: AA-44-1-01/2020; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 23.7.2020 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah dalam No. Permohonan Jenayah: AA-44-1- 01/2020 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 15, 18, 42, 45 dan 92 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara bidang Kuasa Sedia ada Mahkamah Tinggi. ANTARA ... PEMOHON PENDAKWA RAYA DAN 1. (No. Syarikat 13491-P)

...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN DICADANGKAN UNTUK PENGKOMITAN] (Diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato’ Hashim bin Hamzah di Mahkamah Tinggi di Ipoh pada 6 Mei 2021) [DI DENGAR BERSAMA] DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA [BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. A-05-203-05/2021 ANTARA 1. (No. Syarikat 13491-P)

2.

LIM CHEW LIANG ... PERAYU-PERAYU [DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN] PERMOHONAN JENAYAH ΝΟ: ΑΑ-44-1-01/2020 Dalam perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Ipoh Perbicaraan Jenayah No.: AA-62K-(37- 38)-10/2017, AA-62K-(39-45)-10/2017. AA-62K-(114-122)-12/2017 dan AA-62K- (201-209)-08/2019; Dan Dalam perkara Artikel 5, 8 dan 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 3, Seksyen 44(1), Seksyen 50(1), Seksyen 52A, Seksyen 56(1) & 56(3), Seksyen 93 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 ("AMLA"); Dan Perintah-perintah Pembekuan di bawah Seksyen 44(1) AMLA bertarikh 30.4.2013 dan 15.5.2014; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Penyitaan di bawah Seksyen 50(1) AMLA bertarikh 24.7.2014; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 4 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 278 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah; Dan Dalam perkara

Mahkamah bertarikh 18.8.2020 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Hakim Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah di dalam Permohonan Jenayah No: AA-44- 1-01/2020; Dan Dalam perkara Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 23.7.2020 yang diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Hakim Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah di dalam Permohonan Jenayah No: AA-44- 1-01/2020; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 15, 18, 42 dan 45 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah Tinggi. ANTARA ... PEMOHON PENDAKWA RAYA DAN 1. (No. Syarikat 13491-P)

2.

LIM CHEW LIANG ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN DICADANGKAN UNTUK PENGKOMITAN] (Diputuskan oleh Yang Arif Dato’ Hashim bin Hamzah di Mahkamah Tinggi di Ipoh pada 6 Mei 2021) Decision on Enclosure 148 and 138 (Appellant’s extension of time) & Enclosure 82 and 73 (Respondent’s application to strike out the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum) INTRODUCTION [1] Before us are two interlocutory applications. The first is the Appellants' Notices of Motion dated 22 April 2025 filed as Enclosure 148 in Appeal 202 and Enclosure 138 in Appeal 203, seeking an extension of time to file and serve the appeal records dated 5 April 2022. The second is the Respondent's Notices of Motion dated 22 June 2022 filed as Enclosure 82 in Appeal 202 and Enclosure 73 in Appeal 203, seeking to strike out the Appellants' Notices of Appeal and Memorandums of Appeal. [2] After careful consideration of the submissions by both parties, the relevant authorities, and the recent decision of the Federal Court dated 21 February 2025, we allow the Appellants' applications for extension of time and dismiss the Respondent's Striking Out Motions. These are our reasons. REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATIONS The Original Appeal Records Were Filed Within Time [3] The first and most critical fact that distinguishes this case from many other extension of time applications is that the original 16 June 2021 Civil Appeal Records were filed within time, specifically within the ninety-day period prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994. This is not a case where appeal records were never filed within the prescribed period. [4] The Respondent received the 16 June 2021 Civil Appeal Records on 16 June 2021 and subsequently in hardcopy in July 2021 but raised no objection to their format or content. The Respondent thereby accepted the appeal records without objection despite having had multiple clear opportunities to raise concerns. This acceptance is an important factor in determining whether to grant an extension of time for the corrected records. Genuine Mistake, Not Deliberate Non-Compliance [5] The cross-filing error in the 16 June 2021 Civil Appeal Records was a genuine clerical mistake, not a deliberate attempt to mislead or flout the rules. Due to an inadvertent error, the documents and records intended for Appeal 202 were mistakenly filed under Appeal 203, and vice versa. [6] The Appellants have acted reasonably and in good faith throughout. They have not sought to hide any errors or to proceed without regularization in the hope that irregularities would go unnoticed. Absence of Dishonest Intent [7] We wish to emphasize most clearly that we find no dishonest intent whatsoever on the part of the Appellants or their solicitors in this matter. The Respondent has made serious allegations suggesting deliberate misleading of the Court, but we reject these allegations entirely. [8] The Appellants' solicitors acted with complete transparency at all material times, promptly notifying the Respondent's solicitors of the re-filing on 5 April 2022 and inviting them to point out any missing documents. [9] The fact that the Appellants have now brought formal applications to regularize the position, with full explanation of the circumstances, is itself evidence of their good faith and absence of any intent to mislead. [10] We therefore categorically reject any suggestion of dishonest intent on the part of the Appellants. What occurred here was a series of genuine procedural complications arising from an initial clerical error in cross-filing documents, confusion over whether civil or criminal procedure applied which has now been definitively resolved by the Federal Court, evolving administrative directions from the Court, and multiple interlocutory challenges by the Respondent. None of this involved any dishonesty, bad faith, or intention to mislead the Court. Prompt Remedial Action [11] Following this Court's decision on 1 April 2022 specifically directing that "the appeal records filed on 16.6.2021 to be used in Appeal 202 and Appeal 203.", which clarified that civil appeal records should be used, the Appellants discovered the cross-filing error and promptly took steps to rectify it by filing the corrected 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records on 5 April 2022, just four days after the Court's decision. This demonstrates promptness and diligence in responding to the Court's clarification. [12] The Appellants immediately notified the Respondent's solicitors by letter dated 5 April 2022 and invited them to point out any missing documents within fourteen days. This demonstrates full transparency and good faith. The Appellants did not attempt to slip the corrected records through without notice. Rather, they drew attention to the correction and invited scrutiny. [13] The Appellants maintained full transparency with the Respondent throughout the process. They did not seek to hide the fact that they were correcting the earlier records or to proceed without giving the Respondent notice and an opportunity to comment. [14] The Appellants were entitled to believe, based on the Respondent's acceptance of the original records and this Court's direction to use those records, that no formal application was necessary. It was only when the Respondent filed the Second Preliminary Objection on 17 April 2025 that the Appellants, in the abundance of caution, filed the present applications on 22 April 2025 to regularize the position. [15] The confusion over procedural directions is an extraneous circumstance that explains the sequence of events. It was not the Appellants' fault that there was uncertainty about whether civil or criminal procedure applied. This uncertainty has now been definitively resolved by the Federal Court. The Federal Court's Decision Supports Extension of Time [16] The Federal Court's decision on 21 February 2025 is of fundamental importance to our decision to allow the extension of time applications. The Federal Court affirmed this Court's 1 April 2022 decision dismissing the Respondent's First Preliminary Objection. [17] That decision established definitively that the contempt proceedings are civil in nature, notwithstanding that they arose from proceedings in the High Court's criminal jurisdiction, that the Appellants were correct to file their Memorandum of Appeal and Records of Appeal in accordance with Order 18 of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 which governs civil procedure, and that this Court's direction on 1 April 2022 that "the appeal records filed on 16.6.2021 to be used in Appeal 202 and Appeal 203" was correct. [18] In these circumstances, where the Federal Court has now confirmed that the Appellants took the correct procedural approach, it would be manifestly unjust to refuse extension of time and strike out the appeals on the ground that the Appellants corrected their appeal records to comply with the civil procedure that has now been authoritatively confirmed as correct. [19] The Federal Court's decision provides authoritative support for our decision to allow the extension of time applications. Refusing extension of time would, in effect, penalize the Appellants for following the correct procedure that has now been confirmed by the Federal Court. This would be contrary to the interests of justice. Conclusion on Extension of Time Applications [20] Accordingly, we allow the Appellants' applications for extension of time filed as Enclosure 148 in Appeal 202 and Enclosure 138 in Appeal 203. Time is extended for the filing and service of the 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records. The 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records shall be the appeal records used for the substantive hearing of Appeal 202 and Appeal 203. REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE STRIKING OUT MOTIONS The Extension of Time Applications Cure Any Irregularities [21] Having allowed the extension of time applications, the Respondent's Striking Out Motions must necessarily fail. The Striking Out Motions were premised on the argument that the 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records were filed without leave of Court and were therefore irregular. Now that we have granted extension of time for the filing of those records, they are regularized and there is no basis for striking out the appeals. [22] To allow the Striking Out Motions in these circumstances would amount to a collateral attack on the Federal Court's decision. This we cannot permit. When the Federal Court has made a binding determination on a matter, lower courts must respect that determination. We cannot, through the back door of a striking out application, undermine what the Federal Court has definitively established. [23] The Federal Court's decision alone is sufficient to dispose of the Striking Out Motions. The Respondent sought to strike out the appeals on the basis that the Appellants had used the wrong procedure. The Federal Court has now confirmed that the Appellants used the correct procedure. There is no longer any basis for the Striking Out Motions. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS [24] For all the reasons set out above, we make the following orders. [25] First, we allow the Appellants' applications for extension of time filed as Enclosure 148 in Appeal 202 and Enclosure 138 in Appeal 203. Time is extended for the filing and service of the 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records. The 5 April 2022 Civil Appeal Records shall be the appeal records used for the substantive hearing of Appeal 202 and Appeal 203. [26] Second, we dismiss the Respondent's Striking Out Motions filed as Enclosure 82 in Appeal 202 and Enclosure 73 in Appeal 203. [27] While costs do not normally follow the event in criminal appeals, we note that these are applications concerning civil contempt proceedings. Moreover, the Respondent has pursued multiple unsuccessful interlocutory challenges that have unnecessarily delayed the hearing of the substantive appeals and consumed significant judicial resources. However, in the exercise of our discretion, we make no order as to costs for these applications. [28] The substantive appeals in Appeal 202 and Appeal 203 shall now proceed to be heard on their merits. We direct the Registry to fix dates for the hearing of the substantive appeals as soon as practicable. [29] We express the hope that the parties will now allow these appeals to be determined on their merits without further procedural challenges. The time has come for the substantive issues to be addressed. The Appellants are entitled to have their challenges to the leave orders heard and determined. The Respondent is entitled to have certainty as to whether the leave orders will stand or fall. The interests of justice require that these matters be brought to a conclusion. Tarikh: 14 November 2025 Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya Peguam bagi pihak Perayu-Perayu : Tetuan Shearn Delamore & Co. 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwog Hing, No. 1, Leboh Ampang, 50100 Kuala Lumpur Peguam bagi pihak Responden : Tetuan Sandeep Gobindeep & Co. No. 10, Medan Istana 1 Bandar Ipoh Raya 30000 Ipoh Perak