00:01The High Court in Kuala Lumpur on Monday fixed February 22, 2027 to deliver its decision
00:08on a judicial review application by the family of the late Tun Daim Zainuddin challenging
00:14the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's M.A.C.C. freezing of their bank accounts.
00:20Judge Noorliza Othman set the date after hearing submissions from lawyer Abraham Au, representing
00:26Daim's family and senior federal counsel Nohafidza Azizan, who appeared for the M.A.C.C.
00:33and five other respondents.
00:36Abraham argued that the authorities had issued a second freezing notice in 2024 under a different
00:42law before the first notice issued in 2023 expired, effectively bypassing statutory timelines
00:50and extending the freeze to 30 months.
00:53Nohafidza said the M.A.C.C. had the prerogative to determine how it conducted its investigations,
01:00adding that investigations began in March 2023 before the seizure notices were issued.
01:06She also said 54 of the 73 bank accounts involved had been released, while 19 remained frozen
01:12pending forfeiture proceedings.
01:14The High Court had, on November 5, 2025, granted Daim's family leave to challenge the
01:20M.A.C.C.'s seizure and freezing of their bank accounts.
01:24The application, filed on June 6, 2024, seeks to set aside the M.A.C.C.'s actions under
01:31Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act
01:382001. The applicants include Daim's wife, Taw Puan Naima Abdul Khalid, their four children and 18
01:46companies. They named M.A.C.C. Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Division, Assistant Superintendent
01:53Haris Fadila Sukhaime, M.A.C.C. Anti-Money Laundering Prevention Division, Director Datuk
02:00Zainul Abedin, then M.A.C.C. Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azambaki, the M.A.C.C., Prime Minister
02:08Datuk Shri Anwar Ibrahim and the Government of Malaysia as the first to sixth respondents
02:14respectively.
02:15They also seek a declaration that the freezing order and related actions by the M.A.C.C.
02:21are invalid and void.
02:23In her supporting affidavit, Naima claimed no money laundering charges had been brought
02:28against the applicants and that the seizure order under Section 44, subsection 5 of the
02:34AMLA would therefore lapse after 90 days.
Comments