KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) will raise objections to the judicial review application filed by former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and his family, who are seeking to lift the freeze on their bank accounts by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
Senior federal counsel (SFC) Shamsul Bolhassan informed the court of the matter during proceedings before High Court judge Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh yesterday.
The judicial review application will be heard on Aug 8 before Justice Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.
SFC Ahmad Hanir Hambaly was also present for the AGC, while Daim and his family were represented by lawyer Nizamuddin Hamid.
Nizamuddin confirmed when contacted by Bernama that the court had also issued a protection order, prohibiting sensitive information about the applicants’ bank accounts from being disclosed to the public.
On June 6, Daim and his family filed an application seeking an order to revoke MACC’s seizure of their assets under Section 50 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) 2001.
In addition to Daim, the applicants include his wife, Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, and their four children, Asnida, Wira Dani, Muhammed Amir Zainuddin and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin.
The 18 companies named as applicants are 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 ASP Haris Fadhila Sukaime; MACC Anti-Money Laundering Prevention Division director Datuk Mohamad Zamri Zainul Abidin; MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki; Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the Malaysian government as the first to sixth respondents.
They also sought a declaration that the MACC’s seizure of movable assets under Section 50 of the AMLA 2001, as well as all actions and decisions taken by the first to fourth respondents, were invalid and void.
The High Court here dismissed Daim and his family’s initial judicial review application on March 4 due to the applicants’ failure to demonstrate malicious intent on the part of the MACC officers conducting the investigation.
