High Court allows judicial review against BNM, AGC over seizure orders

High Court allows judicial review against BNM, AGC over seizure orders

It follows a second bid by an e-commerce firm and 11 others to challenge the central bank's decision to freeze and seize their accounts.

E-commerce firm i-Serve Online Mall Sdn Bhd and 11 others contend that Bank Negara Malaysia’s seizure orders are defective and made in bad faith and may destroy the company’s business.
PETALING JAYA:
An e-commerce firm and 11 others have been granted leave to initiate judicial review proceedings against Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to challenge seizure orders issued by the central bank.

Proceedings will also be held against five BNM officers and the National Anti-Financial Crime Centre (NFCC), according to a report by The Edge.

The financial daily reported that judge Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh made the decision after M Kogilambigai, representing the AGC, did not object to the application to challenge the seizure orders.

In addition to i-Serve Online Mall Sdn Bhd, the other 11 applicants include two of its shareholders, Goh Hwan Hua and his wife, Neow Ean Lee.

This is the second judicial review granted to the applicants.

In April, Wan Ahmad Farid granted them leave to challenge BNM’s orders to freeze several of i-Serve’s accounts. They had been frozen since last November.

Wan Ahmad ruled that the applicants had proved a prima facie case to challenge the legality of the seizure orders, as BNM had failed to state the subject of its purported money laundering probe.

He also ruled that the firm and its applicants may be entitled to damages if the freeze orders were found to be unlawful.

However, after the first leave for judicial review was granted, BNM issued several new seizure orders and claimed that this rendered i-Serve’s first legal challenge academic.

The firm then filed for a second judicial review against BNM, the AGC and NFCC.

According to the report, the applicants contend that the seizure orders were defective and made in bad faith following the previous freeze orders. It also claimed the orders may destroy its business.

The firm and the 11 other applicants were represented by DP Naban, Rosli Dahlan, Chetan Jethwani and Amiratu Al Amirat.

Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.