Crime & Courts

High Court dismisses govt's bid to forfeit luxury items belonging to Najib, Rosmah [NSTTV]

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today dismissed the government's application to forfeit RM80 million luxury items owned by Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

The items were seized four years ago, in relation to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) case.

High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin ruled that there was no proof that the items were obtained using 1MDB funds.

The luxury items in question include 2,435 jewelleries, seven Richard Mille watches and 29 handbags, which were seized from a condominium unit owned by OBYU Holdings on May 17, 2018.

The items were alleged to be proceeds from illegal activities related to 1MDB funds under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

Jamil said this was his findings after deliberating on both Najib and Rosmah's affidavits, as well as other supporting affidavits including from Federal Police Head of Special Investigation Division of the Anti-Money-Laundering Team Superintendent Foo Wei Min.

"Superintendent Foo's affidavit failed to prove that the watches seized are proceeds from criminal breach of trust (CBT) activity or stolen property.

"The element of predicate offence (illegal activity) is not proven, so, therefore there is no issue that the watches seized were obtained in relation to the offence.

"While the officer also said that the handbags were received as personal gifts, but there was no firm evidence to support that (claim)," he said.

Today's proceeding was the final government bid to forfeit the luxury items seized four years ago, as the same judge, last year, had struck out the government's application to forfeit RM114 million seized from Najib and Rosmah.

Deputy public prosecutor Fatin Hanani Khairuddin, in acknowledging the decision, submitted for an interim stay, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"We are waiting for further instructions in the matter to file an appeal against today's ruling.

"Therefore, we would like to apply for a stay in executing in returning these items, if an appeal is entered, until the appeal is heard."

The prosecution's move, however, was rebutted by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah representing Najib and lawyer Azamuddin Abd Aziz representing Rosmah, who argued that the cited section was not applicable in the matter for a forfeiture suit, but is meant for a criminal proceeding.

"Pertaining to pure criminal proceedings, the judge will pronounce guilty or not, and if guilty, there is a sentence. That is when people like the defence counsel will stand up and say 'can you not conclude the order but suspend it because we are appealing'.

"This is not a section where the prosecution made an application. Because that will fly into the face of liberty.

"The prosecution also showed that they are putting out the papers for the Attorney-General Chambers to consider whether or not to appeal.

"In the light of this uncertainty, there cannot be an order for a stay. I, therefore, request that you, Yang Arif, reject the prosecution's request."

The judge then ruled that he had made no order, to whom the properties will be returned to. He also rejected the prosecution's application for an interim stay.

The government, on May 20 last year, failed in its bid to forfeit RM114 million in cash that was seized by police during a raid at the Pavilion Residences in 2018, soon after the fall of the Najib-led Barisan Nasional (BN) administration.

Speaking to reporters later after proceedings, Shafee said the raid at the Pavilion Residence four years ago amounted to nothing more than a smoking gun to implicate Najib and Razak as well as illustrate that the couple were the culprit behind the 1MDB scandals.

"Today's decision showed that this is a lie orchestrated by the then government, which is now the current opposition.

"The court today ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the predicate offence of CBT and that the said items were retained from 1MDB funds.

"My client is happy. He expected (the ruling). This is something that has got nothing to do with 1MDB," said Shafee.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories