PUTRAJAYA (July 17): The prosecution has again failed to forfeit two properties, purportedly in relation to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) assets, from fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho’s (Jho Low) sister, Low May Lin.

A three-member Court of Appeal (COA) bench on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by the prosecution to forfeit the two properties, including a condo in Jalan Kia Peng in Kuala Lumpur, and other assets worth more than RM2 million.

“There are no merits in the appeal. There is no appealable error, and the bench agrees with the finding of the High Court.

“There is no evidence of a money trail on the seized property. The appellants’ (prosecution) appeal is dismissed, and the High Court ruling is affirmed,” said COA judge Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, who chaired the bench.

However, the bench has left it to the prosecution to decide on whether it wants to seize cash money of RM125,461.95 and 26 bottles of alcoholic beverages that were retrieved from one of the properties.

The other two judges in the unanimous decision were Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Datuk Azmi Ariffin.

The prosecution is appealing the dismissal of its forfeiture application against May Lin and her company Casa Rialto Sdn Bhd, as well as STH Motor Sdn Bhd, Sempadan Seloka Sdn Bhd, Penas Health Care Sdn Bhd, and Ooi Chin Choo.

It wants to recover the two properties - namely an office in UOA Centre owned by Casa Rialto Sdn Bhd, and the Kia Peng Peng condo owned by May Lin. In addition, it wants to recover two Toyota Alphards from STH Motor, RM211,607.60 from Sempadan Seloka, RM166,758.65 from Penas Health Care, and RM125,461.95 and 26 bottles of alcohol from Ooi.

Ooi manages one of the properties said to be owned by May Lin.

Deputy public prosecutor K Mangai had earlier told the court in her submissions that the property that included luxury vehicles acquired from STH Motor through Jho Low’s father, Tan Sri Larry Low Hock Peng, were from proceeds of unlawful activity following a transfer of US$327 million (RM1.53 billion) from Abu Dhabi and Kuwait to a BSI Bank account owned by Hock Peng that is said to have originated from 1MDB.

This follows an affidavit affirmed by Police Assistant Commissioner R Rajagopal and Superintendent Foo Wei Min over criminal breach of trust and money laundering done by Hock Peng, who is May Lin’s father.

Mangai said the two Toyota Alphards were from receipts from the selling of four vehicles and three motorcycles from Hock Peng, while the two properties were paid off in 2012.

She said those properties and assets were acquired during the critical period when the purported breach of trust happened between 2009 and 2013.

Mangai said Ooi had denied that the RM125,461.95 cash money belonged to her or the 26 alcoholic beverages, and no one has claimed them in third-party proceedings.

Meanwhile, counsel M Puravalen, acting for May Lin and Casa Rialto, said the affidavits filed by the police officers lacked probity to show causal relation between the alleged breach of trust and money from illegal proceeds.

As a result, Puravalen said the High Court judge was right in dismissing the application.

“The properties in question were not the subject matter or evidence relating to the commission of offence for breach of trust,” he added.

Another counsel Tai Yong Fung, acting for Sempadan Seloka and Penas Health Care, said they were only engaged by Hock Peng in December 2018 to help engage Ooi in managing the properties, but the purported offence of criminal breach of trust was between 2009 and 2013.

Hence, he questioned how the police could say the proceeds in the account are from unlawful activity.

Counsel Lavinia Kumaraendran, acting for Ooi, said the prosecution was wrong in naming her client as one of the respondents as Ooi merely collects rent for the property and she had already shown the authorities that the cash money and alcoholic bottles in the property were not hers.

“She did not claim the cash money or the bottles in those properties and should not be named,” she said.

On Aug 22, 2022, High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin had dismissed the prosecution’s forfeiture application to seize those assets, as he ruled that there was insufficient evidence to link the respondents to any offence under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.

He said the court found no evidence to show that the properties were funded by illegal proceeds, and that there is no substantial connection between the properties and the respondent, with the predicate or more serious offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code. 

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/node/719359