KUALA LUMPUR (Aug 14): Lawyer Rosli Dahlan was unsuccessful on Wednesday in obtaining leave from the High Court to challenge the police and Attorney General's Chambers' move to seize his four Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd (ASNB) accounts under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activitis Act (AMLATFPUA).

In a different matter earlier this year, Rosli managed to get leave to commence judicial review to challenge and quash the freezing of his and his wife’s bank accounts as well as a travel ban imposed on him by the police, with the court then ruling that the police had acted in bad faith.

However, Judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, who heard the second judicial review application, ruled that the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) had not acted in bad faith in issuing the seizure order.

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

End of dialog window.

Wan Ahmad Farid, in his broad grounds, said the court would not normally interfere with the investigation process unless mala fide (bad faith) is shown.

The judge said Rosli’s case is anchored solely on the allegation that the DPP’s exercise of power under Section 50 of AMLATFPUA is based on the false information given to him by the police investigating officers.

"The DPP is alleged to have acted on false information by the police investigation team. That, without more, cannot, in any stretch of legal imagination constitute mala fide unless there is a further allegation of collusion between police and the DPP. There was none.

“Hence, this application for leave is refused. In view that this case is of public interest, I am not making any order as to costs,” Wan Ahmad Farid said

Rosli had claimed that the police had acted on him based false information, in the form of a police report lodged by AirAsia Bhd against i-Serve Sdn Bhd in respect of top-up transactions between them amounting to RM48.4 million that resulted in the freezing of Rosli and his wife’s accounts late last year.

Rosli had acted for counsel for i-Serve in several of its forfeiture cases last year.

Following the first judicial review, the accounts belonging to the lawyer and his wife were unfrozen but Rosli’s four ASNB accounts were continuously frozen and subject to seizure under Section 50 of AMLATFPUA on Jan 18 this year.

Rosli had alleged in his second judicial review application that the examination against him and subsequent seizure of his assets were not actually done to assist police in investigating AirAsia's claim against i-Serve, but rather for a collateral purpose to victimise and embarrass him for reasons that are unlawful under the law.

Wan Ahmad Farid in his decision said there was no evidence before the court that the police investigations had been completed.

“The applicant [Rosli] is practically inviting this court to set aside the seizure order when the investigation process is yet to be completed.

“I do not, with respect, think that this court can intervene at this stage. For that matter, the investigation, once completed, might even exonerate him. It is therefore not to the advantage of the applicant for this court to interfere with the process of investigation at this stage,” he added.

The judge said he understood the reason why Rosli was granted leave in his first judicial review application, but said that case was different from the second one with regards to the issue of the DPP’s good faith in exercising his powers. 

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/node/722803