Justice Aliza Sulaiman set the date after hearing submissions from senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan, representing the attorney-general, while lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar represented Daim and his family.
Earlier, Gurdial submitted that the applicants had established that there was arguably a clear indication that the respondents had abused their powers by invoking different statutes to indefinitely prolong the freezing or seizure of the applicants’ properties beyond the powers conferred on them.
“There are clear triable issues that warrant further argument by the parties at the substantive stage,” he said.
Meanwhile, Nurhafizza argued that the seizure by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was an exercise of function in the course of criminal investigation and was not amenable to judicial review.
“The applicants’ allegations essentially boil down to the complaints that the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts was done without basis and the investigation against them is politically motivated and tainted with mala fide,” she said.
Nurhafizza also said the applicants failed to adduce compelling and prima facie proof which “singularly lead to the inevitable conclusion” that the allegations had been proven.
In their application, filed on June 6, 2024, Daim and his family are seeking an order to set aside the MACC’s action in seizing and freezing their movable assets, under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla).
Apart from Daim, the applicants include his wife Naimah Khalid and their four children, Asnida, Wira Dani, Amir and Amin.
Eighteen companies were also named as applicants, namely Aad Equity Sdn Bhd; Yayasan Haji Zainuddin; Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd; Anchor Point Sdn Bhd; Kangkung Catering Sdn Bhd; Adrihaniz Sdn Bhd; Syarikat Maluri Sdn Bhd; Amiraz Sdn Bhd; Ridana Sdn Bhd; Daan Sdn Bhd; Maya Seni Holdings Sdn Bhd; Magical Zone Sdn Bhd; Permatang Maju (M) Sdn Bhd; Brainstorms Sdn Bhd; Arida Farms Sdn Bhd; Gajah3 Resource Centre Sdn Bhd; Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, and Selidik Jaya Sdn Bhd.
All the applicants named MACC money laundering and asset forfeiture division assistant superintendent Haris Fadhila Sukaime; MACC anti-money laundering prevention division director Zamri Zainul Abidin; MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki; MACC; Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim; and the government of Malaysia, as the first to sixth respondents.
They also sought a declaration that the freezing order imposed by the MACC against the applicants’ bank accounts, and all actions and decisions taken by the first to fourth respondents are invalid and void.
In her supporting affidavit, Naimah claimed that since no charges pertaining to money laundering have been preferred to date, the seizure order under Section 44 (5) of Amla will lapse after 90 days, from the date of the order.