Bagi menjawab perenggan 41 dan 42 affidavit jawapan tersebut, saya mengulangi pernyataan saya di perenggan 8.” [84] The appellant contended that, as the investigating officer under the Act, Nurul Huda binti Abdul Rahman is unable to confirm or deny that the sum of RM32,930,000.00 have been spent. It is insufficient for the investigating officer to merely states the fact that the monies no longer exist. We are dealing with fact. Not opinion. Forfeiture application is tried by way of affidavit evidence. Based on the case of Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 CL J 609, the appellant submitted the facts deposed by Mohd Soffi bin Abdul Razak in paragraphs 39 - 41 of the appellant’s affidavit in reply is deemed admitted by the respondent. We agree with the appellant. Failure to reply on the non - existence of RM32,930,000.00 means the respondent has admitted that the sum of RM32,930,000.00 given by DSN no longer exist and the seized monies could not be part of or related to the sum of RM32,930,000.00. Therefore, it is incumbent on the respondent to prove that the monies seized in the appellant’s bank account originates from an offence under section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 allegedly committed by DSN. We find there was no evidence proferred by the respondent to prove DSN has committed an offence under section 23 of the MACC Act. The affidavit evidence of Nur Aida binti Ariffin, the investigating officer of the predicate offence merely state the movement of monies from the various foreign entities into DSN’s bank account. Likewise, there was no explanation or reasons given by Nurul Huda as to how she concluded the monies in the respondents’ bank account were proceeds from an offence under section 23 of the MACC Act. Instead, the appellant has made a positive assertion that the sum of RM2,479,300.18 was the appellant’s monies and not from the monies given by DSN. This assertion is not challenged by the respondent and is deemed admitted. This being the case, we agree with the appellant that the learned High Judge had erred in His Lordship’s ruling that paragraph 41 of Mohd Soffi’s affidavit is a bare assertion. The only reason the respondent linked the seized monies to an unlawful activity is simply because the appellant had received RM32,930,000.00 from DSN and therefore, whatever amount remaining in the appellant’s account is still considered as part of the monies paid by DSN. Thus, the respondent is making an assumption, which is wrong in law. The law requires the respondent to prove the said RM2,479,300.18 is derived from an offence under section 23 of the MACC Act allegedly committed by DSN within the meaning of section 56 (2) (a) (iii) of the Act. We find the respondent has failed to do so. On this ground alone, we find merit in the appellant’s appeal. We, therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. Group Two: Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu; Wanita MCA: and Badan Perhubungan UMNO Negeri Kedah & 4 Ors. [85] In these appeals,the appellant has raised an issue that the learned High Court Judges had erred in failing to make an order for forfeiture under section 56 and a pecuniary penalty order under section 59 of the Act. [86] The appellant contended they have satisfied the requirements in section 56 (2) (a) (iii) of the Act based on the following facts: