AZMI BIN ALANG AHMAD (menyaman untuk dirinya sendiri dan dalam kapasiti perwakilannya untuk dan bagi manfaat keseluruhan kelas orang-orang yang telah mendepositkan wang kepada MGSB Berhad) v 1. ) SITI WAKI'AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dalam kapasiti rasmi sebagai Pegawai Penyiasat di bawah Jabatan Perisikan Kewangan Dan Penguatkuasaan (FIED) Bank Negara Malaysia) (WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022)

SITI WAKI’AH BINTI MOHD NOR (yang dituntut dalam kapasiti rasmi sebagai Pegawai Penyiasat di bawah Jabatan Perisikan Kewangan dan

2.

DATO’ SERI AMAR SINGH ISHAR SINGH (yang dituntut dalam kapasiti rasmi sebagai

TAN SRI ACRYL SANI ABDULLAH SANI 03/08/2025 11:39:16 WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 Kand. 98 (yang dituntut dalam kapasiti rasmi sebagai Ketua

5.

6.

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

This Court had earlier allowed the 1st Defendant, one Siti Waki’ah Binti Mohd Nor’s application to strike out the claim against her. She was an Investigation Officer in the Financial Intelligence and Enforcement Department of the 2nd Defendant, i.e. Bank Negara Malaysia. As for the Plaintiffs’ claim against the remaining defendants, it was agreed to be heard pursuant to Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 by setting out the issues to determine if it would be necessary to call witnesses. Had it turned out to be necessary, further dates were to be fixed for that purpose.

After hearing submissions by all counsel on 9 issues that arose from the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties, I arrived at the conclusion that those 9 issues could be determined without viva voce evidence, and that the Plaintiffs’ claim would fail due to, inter alia, their failure to name the Public Prosecutor as a co-defendant. Even though Order 15 Rules of Court 2012 enables the adding of new parties, there was no application by the Plaintiff to add the Public Prosecutor as a party. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff stood by her opinion that the Plaintiff’s pleaded case is sufficient.

My reasons for arriving at my answers to those 9 issues posed pursuant to Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 are set out below. Background Facts 4. This civil suit was filed by the Plaintiff for himself and also as a Class Action on behalf of persons named in a list marked as “Lampiran A”, who are allegedly persons who had deposited money with MGSB Berhad. “Lampiran A” contained 72 names, with the Plaintiff’s name listed first. The Plaintiff and those 71 other persons shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Plaintiff and his comrades”.

The amended pleadings show that the Plaintiff and his comrades are suing the Defendants in this civil suit to try to recover the monies that they had respectively deposited with a company by the name of MGSB Berhad. From the narrative in the lengthy Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff and his comrades are victims of a scam. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants 6. The Plaintiff’s lengthy Statement of Claim was amended twice. His Re-amended Statement of Claim contains 85 paragraphs. The narrative is about a person by the name of Hisyamuddin, presumably the mastermind, being a director of the said MGSB Berhad together with Nur Ain Aliana binti Mat Azmi, Ahmad Zalimi Bin Mohd Ali and Halimatun Saadiah binti Che Omar. GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 7. It was further pleaded by the Plaintiff that the said Hisyamuddin and other directors of the said MGSB Berhad had allegedly used misrepresentation about three projects to induce the Plaintiff and his comrades to invest in MGSB Berhad. Those three investment projects were pleaded to have been for the import and export of coconuts, a development project in Pulau Sirandah, Indonesia and a Go Public Initial Public Offering in Indonesia. The Plaintiff and his comrades pleaded that there were four bank accounts operated by MGSB and they had jointly deposited a total of RM4,249,000.00 into those accounts.

The Plaintiff narrated that the first event of concern to the Plaintiff and his comrades occurred on 15th September 2017 when a raid was conducted on the premises of the said MGSB Berhad following some reports and preliminary investigation. The said raid was led by the 2nd Defendant Bank Negara Malaysia and assisted by officers from the 5th Defendant Polis DiRaja Malaysia, the National Revenue Recovery Enforcement Team (“NRRET”) under the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Companies Commission.

Following the said raid, those four directors of MGSB Berhad were arrested and remanded for being involved in taking money deposits illegally. The Plaintiff further pleaded that 54 bank accounts of MGSB Berhad and cash in Ringgit Malaysia and foreign currencies were seized under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-21NCvC-109-10/2022 10. The Plaintiff and his comrades pleaded that they were aggrieved by the decision of the Defendants in releasing part of the seized funds. Their pleadings could be summarised as follows:

that the Defendants jointly and/or separately have deliberately abused the power vested in them and/or committed the tort of misfeasance as public servants;

the Defendants, jointly and/or separately, knew and were fully aware, at all material times, that as civil servants and enforcement officers involved in the joint raid operation, they had a responsibility to safeguard and protect the money and/or the ‘confiscated assets’ of MGSB Limited.

The prayers of the Plaintiff in his Reamended Statement of Claim are, inter alia, for:

A declaration that the Defendants jointly and/or severally committed the tort of misfeasance;

A declaration that the Defendants jointly and/or severally breached their statutory duty and were negligent;

An order for the Defendants jointly and/or severally to provide written clarifications and explanations with all related documents regarding the position and actual amount of money seized and/or money in the account belonging to MGSB and/or any money during the joint raid conducted by the Defendants against MGSB, within 21 days from the date the judgment is given;

An order for the Defendants to release and/or return part of the seized money and/or money in the account belonging to MGSB amounting to RM5,110,800.00 and/or any other amount determined by the Court to the Plaintiff and people in the class action, through solicitors Messrs. Faizal Rahman &

In the alternative, an order for the Defendants to release and/or return part of the seized money and/or money in the account belonging to MGSB amounting to RM 4,249,000.00 which is the capital paid by the Plaintiff and people in the class action and/or any amount other determined by the Court to the Plaintiff and people in the class action, through the solicitors

In the alternative, an order for the Defendants to release and/or return part of the seized money and/or money in the account belonging to MGSB amounting to RM 851,000.00 which is the profit promised to the Plaintiff and/or any other amount determined by the Court to the Plaintiff and the people in the class action through the solicitors Messrs. Faizal

General damages;

Aggravated damages;

Exemplary damages and/or punitive damages; and

interest at 5% p.a. on the damages to be awarded. The Facts Disclosed in the Defendants’ Affidavits 12. The Defendants’ respective affidavits disclosed the following facts regarding the monies that were frozen:

The sum found in the accounts of MGSB Berhad and related entities that were frozen was RM701,054.00;

There was never any sum of RM56,468,498.29 as claimed by the Plaintiff. The amount of RM56,468,498.29 stated in the charge sheet against MGSB Berhad was based on investigation records and was not the amount found or seized;

After further investigation, it was found that only RM8,943.61 in two bank accounts out of the RM701,054.00 belonging to MGSB were the “barang kes”, i.e. to be tendered as the exhibits for the AMLA and Predicate case charges;

From the date when the bank accounts of MGSB Berhad and its related entities were frozen on 15th September 2017 till 22nd August 2019, which was the date when MGSB Berhad and its directors pleaded guilty in the Kajang Sessions Court, the relevant “barang kes” continued to be frozen, i.e. not released;

The release of monies frozen in the impugned bank accounts were based on the instructions of a Deputy Public Prosecutor after completion of investigation. Some of the seizure orders had expired while the rest had been revoked upon the instructions of the Deputy Public Prosecutor. It was not in conflict with any investigation or action of the 5th Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff. The 9 issues posed pursuant to Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 13. The 9 issues posed pursuant to Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 were drafted in Malay. There are as follows:

Sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 terlibat dalam rampasan, tangkapan dan siasatan syarikat MGSB Berhad berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif?

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.1 adalah negatif, sama ada tuntutan pihak Plaintif terhadap Defendan-defendan Ke- 3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 wajar dibatalkan?

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.1 adalah positif, sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 mempunyai tugas dan tanggungjawab untuk mendedahkan hasil siasatan jenayah berkenaan MGSB Berhad kepada pihak Plaintif sebelum membuat keputusan untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang telah dibekukan berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif?

Sama ada keputusan Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 selepas tamatnya siasatan jenayah, untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang telah dibekukan, adalah keputusan yang boleh dicabar melalui prosiding mahkamah?

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.4 adalah positif, sama ada. permohonan pihak Plaintif wajar difailkan dalam Bahagian Sivil atau Bahagian Jenayah Mahkamah Tinggi?

Sama ada keputusan Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang dibekukan berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif, telah memprejudiskan hak pihak Plaintif?

Sama ada pihak Plaintif berkepentingan atas wang dan/atau aset yang dibekukan/dirampas daripada MGSB Berhad dan entiti atau orang yang berkaitan dengan MGSB Berhad, dan mempunyai locus standi untuk mengetahui kedudukan wang dan/atau aset yang telah dibekukan/dirampas tersebut.

Sama ada siasatan dan keputusan yang diambil dalam suatu kes jenayah, terbuka untuk disoal oleh pihak Plaintif yang telah membuat laporan Polis terhadap pihak-pihak yang disiasat?

Sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 mempunyai tugas untuk mengurangkan kerugian yang dialami oleh pihak Plaintif. Analysis of the Law and Facts 14. The Plaintiff has pleaded tort of misfeasance in public office. The Federal Court in Tony Pua Kiam Wee v. Government of Malaysia [2019] 12 MLJ 1 had held that a tort of misfeasance in public office would be established only if there is “abuse of public power or authority by a public officer who was recklessly indifferent as to the limits of his public power or authority, and who acted with reckless indifference to the probability of harming the plaintiff”.

In our present case, the Plaintiff and his comrades were initially pleased when they read of news of several bank accounts related to MGSB Berhad being seized – raising their hope of recovering their monies that were scammed. As mentioned above, they decided to file this civil suit after finding that the accounts allegedly linked to MGSB Berhad and its directors had been released.

Regardless of the sentiments of the Plaintiff and his comrades, they must note that even though the Public Prosecutor has the power, pursuant to ss.50 & 51 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLA”), to order the seizure (and release) of bank accounts, it is not an unfettered discretion.

The Public Prosecutor has the prerogative to decide on whether to charge any person but his decision to charge may be exercised only if there is evidence to justify prosecution. Thus, in cases where a Deputy Public Prosecutor finds insufficient evidence to charge, he would be dutybound to release the frozen/seized accounts or allow the seizure order to expire by effluxion of time (s.52A) unless he can justify applying for a forfeiture order pursuant to s.56 of AMLA.

In the recent case of Rosli bin Dahlan v Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh (Peguam Negara Malaysia) [2024] MLJU 2636, Wan Ahmad Farid J (as His Lordship then was) held that the investigative process, which includes the issuance of a Seizure Order under Section 50 of AMLA, is amenable to judicial review in “appropriate circumstances” and the presence of mala fide is one of them. His Lordship held as follows: “[50] The general proposition, I believe, can be found in the judgment of the Federal Court in Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor [2017] 10 CLJ 1. The Federal Court referred to City Growth Sdn Bhd & Anor v The Government of Malaysia [2005] 7 CLJ 422 and Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Bahagian Penguatkuasa Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri Dan Hal Ehwal Pengguna Malaysia & Anor [2018] Supp MLJ 16 FC and held that the actions or decisions of an enforcement agency, in this case, the PDRM, in the exercise of its investigative powers are not open to judicial review. The rationale behind the general proposition is that the Court should not expose the criminal investigative processes of all law enforcement agencies to constant judicial review. [51] But this general proposition is subject to an exception. Abu Samah Nordin FCJ in Latheefa Koya indicated that one way to challenge, if at all, is to prove that the act of the investigating officers was tainted with mala fide or bad faith. [67] For the reasons aforesaid, my findings are as follows:

The investigative process, which includes the issuance of a Seizure Order under Section 50 of AMLA, is amenable to judicial review. The discretion granted by statute to any person can never be unfettered. In the words of Raja Azlan Shah Acting CJ (Malaya) (as the former Lord President then was) in Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprises Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 135, FC, unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms. Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship.

The exercise of discretion under Section 50 is subject to judicial review in “appropriate circumstances” and the presence of mala fide is one of them.”

From the affidavits filed by the Defendants, the seizure orders had either expired or had been revoked by the Deputy Public Prosecutor. The expiry provision is in s.52A of AMLA – stipulating automatic expiry twelve months after the date of the seizure order, or where there is a prior freezing order, 12 months from the date of the freezing order unless the person against whom the order was made has been charged with an offence under AMLA or prosecution has been instituted with regard to any property seized under such order.

Now, it must be noted that freezing orders and seizure orders issued under AMLA are not Mareva injunctions issued in a civil suit to prevent dissipation of assets pending judgment in favour of a plaintiff/claimant. Freezing orders and seizure orders issued under AMLA are for gathering and preserving evidence in an investigation by law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff and his comrades had erroneously regarded the freezing and seizure of bank accounts of MGSB Berhad and its directors, as recovery of their lost monies, which they expected to be paid over to them.

As a matter of fact, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants were not involved in the seizure of money and investigation of MGSB Berhad. This fact answers the issues in favour of the Defendants.

In fact, those 9 issues could be fully determined by the fact that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants did not make any decision to release the seized money in several bank accounts suspected to be linked to MGSB Berhad and its directors. There is no need for oral evidence for this issue to be determined.

Since the cause of action of the Plaintiff is based on a decision of the Deputy Public Prosecutor to release the seized money in several bank accounts suspected to be linked to MGSB Berhad and its directors, the Plaintiff ought to have named the Public Prosecutor as a defendant or to file an application for judicial review if they are able to prove the presence of mala fide. From the evidence adduced in the affidavits, there is no evidence of mala fide (see Rosli bin Dahlan v Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh (Peguam Negara Malaysia) (supra).

Based on the facts of this case, I find that there is no causal link between the alleged loss of the Plaintiff and his comrades with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. Neither is it possible for the tort of misfeasance to be proven against them because the power to release accounts that had been frozen/seized are vested in the Deputy Public Prosecutor. As discussed above, if there is insufficient evidence to charge or to apply, pursuant to s.56 of AMLA, for a forfeiture order without charging, the Deputy Public Prosecutor would be dutybound to release the frozen/seized accounts or allow the seizure order to expire by effluxion of time under s.52A of AMLA.

Further, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants are entitled to rely on Section 77 of AMLA for immunity as there is no evidence of mala fide action on their part. S.77 reads: “No action, suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie or be brought, instituted, or maintained in any court or before any other authority against-

the competent authority or the relevant enforcement agency;

…; or

… , for or on account of, or in respect of, any act done or statement made or omitted to be done or made, or purporting to be done or made or omitted to be done or made, in pursuance of or in execution of, or intended pursuance of or execution of, this Act or any order in writing, direction, instruction or other thing issued under this Act if such act or statement was done or made, or was omitted to be done or made, in good faith.” Conclusion 26. By reason of the findings explained above, the 9 issues raised by the parties pursuant to Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 are answered as follows:

Sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 terlibat dalam rampasan, tangkapan dan siasatan syarikat MGSB Berhad berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif? Jawapan: Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 tidak terlibat dalam rampasan dan siasatan syarikat MGSB Berhad.

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.1 adalah negatif sama ada tuntutan pihak Plaintif terhadap Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke- 5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 wajar dibatalkan? Jawapan: Plaintif sepatutnya menamakan Pendakwa Raya Malaysia sebagai defendan kerana kausa tindakan Plaintif adalah berasaskan keputusan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya untuk melepaskan wang yang disita di dalam beberapa akaun yang disyaki berkaitan dengan syarikat MGSB Berhad dan pengarah-pengarahnya. Oleh itu, jawapan kepada Soalan No.2 adalah Positif.

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.1 adalah positif, sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 mempunyai tugas dan tanggungjawab untuk mendedahkan hasil siasatan jenayah berkenaan MGSB Berhad kepada pihak Plaintif sebelum membuat keputusan untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang telah dibekukan berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif? Jawapan: Tidak berkenaan kerana jawapan kepada Soalan No.1 dan No.2 telah menjadikan Soalan No.3 akademik.

Sama ada keputusan Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 selepas tamatnya siasatan jenayah, untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang telah dibekukan, adalah keputusan yang boleh dicabar melalui prosiding mahkamah? Jawapan: Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 tidak membuat keputusan untuk melepaskan wang yang disita di dalam beberapa akaun yang disyaki berkaitan dengan syarikat MGSB Berhad dan pengarah-pengarahnya.

Jikalau jawapan kepada soalan No.4 adalah positif, sama ada. permohonan pihak Plaintif wajar difailkan dalam Bahagian Sivil atau Bahagian Jenayah Mahkamah Tinggi? Jawapan: Tidak berkenaan kerana jawapan kepada Soalan No.4 adalah Negatif.

Sama ada keputusan Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 untuk melepaskan beberapa akaun bank yang dibekukan berkaitan laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh pihak Plaintif, telah memprejudiskan hak pihak Plaintif? Jawapan: Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 tidak membuat keputusan untuk melepaskan wang yang disita di dalam beberapa akaun yang disyaki berkaitan dengan syarikat MGSB Berhad dan pengarah-pengarahnya.

Sama ada pihak Plaintif berkepentingan atas wang dan/atau aset yang dibekukan/dirampas daripada MGSB Berhad dan entiti atau orang yang berkaitan dengan MGSB Berhad dan mempunyai locus standi untuk mengetahui kedudukan wang dan/atau aset yang telah dibekukan/dirampas tersebut. Jawapan: Jawapan kepada Soalan No.7 bergantung kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan seandainya ada tindakan difailkan terhadap Pendakwa Raya Malaysia yang membuat keputusan untuk melepaskan wang yang disita di dalam beberapa akaun yang disyaki berkaitan dengan syarikat MGSB Berhad dan pengarah-pengarahnya.

Sama ada siasatan dan keputusan yang diambil dalam suatu kes jenayah terbuka untuk disoal oleh pihak Plaintif yang telah membuat laporan Polis terhadap pihak-pihak yang disiasat? Jawapan: Tidak perlu dijawab kerana subjek perkara guaman sivil ini adalah keputusan untuk melepaskan wang yang disita di dalam beberapa akaun yang disyaki berkaitan dengan syarikat MGSB Berhad dan pengarah-pengarahnya, yang merupakan keputusan Pendakwa Raya – yang tidak dinamakan oleh Plaintif sebagai defendan di dalam guaman sivil ini. Subjek perkara guaman sivil ini bukannya laporan Polis yang dibuat oleh Plaintif.

Sama ada Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 mempunyai tugas untuk mengurangkan kerugian yang dialami oleh pihak Plaintif. Jawapan: Negatif. Defendan-defendan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7 tiada tugas untuk mengurangkan kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif.

In light of the above and the fact that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants played no role in deciding to revoke some seizure orders and/or to allow the rest to expire, this Court is constrained to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim against them.

Lastly, on the issue of costs, I need to mention that after the findings were made by this Court, I asked learned counsel for the Plaintiff in open court whether she would like to take instructions on whether to apply to discontinue this suit with liberty to file afresh and with nominal costs. A short adjournment was granted for her to take instructions. She reverted on the next date conveying the Plaintiff’s instructions for this Court to decide, without prejudice to his rights to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is fair to accede to the submissions, by learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant and the learned Senior Federal Counsel who appeared for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants, to order costs in their favour. Thus, costs of RM15,000 is to be paid to the 2nd Defendant and the 7th Defendant respectively by the Plaintiff. Date of decision: 8th May 2025. ……………………………..………………. Gan Techiong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur (NCvC9) Counsel for the Plaintiff: Fatima Zulaikha binti Ahmad Bashri SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: MESSRS FAIZAL RAHMAN & CO. Advocates & Solicitors No. 25-2, 2nd Floor, Block A, Platinum Walk, Jalan Langkawi 2, Danau Kota, Setapak, 53300 KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for the 2nd Defendant: Dato' Joshua Kevin (Yap Zhen Yun & Leng Wie Mun with him) SOLICITORS FOR THE 2nd DEFENDANT: MESSRS KEVIN & CO. Advocates & Solicitors No. 16-6 & 16-3A, Menara 1 Mont Kiara, No. 1, Jalan Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for the 3rd – 7th Defendants: SFC Puan Siti Syakimah Ibrahim (FC Muhammad Amin bin Azizan with her) SOLICITORS FOR THE 3rd – 7th DEFENDANTS: JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA, MALAYSIA Aras 6, Bahagian Guaman, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 PUTRAJAYA. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Sections 50, 51, 52A, 56 & 77 of The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. 2) Order 33 rule 2 Rules of Court 2012. CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Tony Pua Kiam Wee v. Government of Malaysia [2019] 12 MLJ 1 2) Rosli bin Dahlan v Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh (Peguam Negara Malaysia) [2024] MLJU 2636.