Judges Abdul Rahman Sebli and Hasnah Mohammad Hashim were in the majority while Mary Lim Thiam Suan dissented.
“It is a split decision in favour of dismissing the appeal and affirming the findings of the Court of Appeal after careful consideration of the written and oral submissions,” said Rahman who led the bench.
However, the judges did not provide reasons for their decisions.
Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram, who represented Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co, asked if the bench would provide written judgments later because there were similar cases pending in the lower courts.
“Does it matter whether we give grounds or not?” Rahman replied.
Sri Ram said it mattered as there was a dissenting view, and that based on the written grounds he proposed to advise other lawyers on what course they would have to take now.
Rahman repeated that with or without written grounds the decision remained.
The legal firm in this case had in 2016 represented a man for allegedly committing offences under the Penal Code and Computer Crimes Act but was never charged.
The man was also held under the Prevention of Crime Act, a preventive law under which he was ordered to be detained for two years. The High Court on June 16, 2017 ordered his release after the filing of a habeas corpus application.
The legal firm then issued a bill for RM398,722 for services rendered to the man.
Meanwhile, the government froze about RM500,000 kept in the bank account of the man.
As required under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla), the government has to file a motion to seize the money that has been frozen.
The legal firm came in as an intervener to claim part of the money as legal fees for services provided.
On Nov 13, 2018, the Temerloh High Court allowed the firm’s application to recover the money.
Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Court of Appeal on Aug 26, 2020 reversed the High Court ruling.
Sri Ram – who was assisted by Wan Shahrizal Wan Ladin, How Li Nee and Marcus Lee – said today’s ruling would mean lawyers would not appear for clients in anti-money laundering cases.
“The fear is that they will not be able to recover fees from money forfeited,” he told FMT.
Deputy public prosecutor Dusuki Mokhtar appeared for the prosecution.