Teoh Beng Hock case may reopen if new evidence emerges, says Azalina
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said this is because criminal cases are not bound by any statute of limitations.
"Unlike civil cases, criminal cases are not subject to any statute of limitations.
"As such, if new developments arise in the future, further investigation and a review of the case may still be carried out," she said in a written parliamentary reply.
Azalina (BN-Pengerang) said this in response to Lim Guan Eng (PH-Bagan), who had enquired about the reasons for the Attorney-General's Chambers' (A-GC) decision to classify the case as NFA.
Meanwhile, she also said that while the police had established a special investigation team to reopen the probe into Teoh's death following the Court of Appeal's 2014 decision to set aside the coroner's open verdict, there was insufficient evidence to support any criminal charge against any individual.
"As such, NFA directive has been issued by the A-GC in relation to this investigation paper, and this matter was also explained in the A-GC's media statement dated May," she said.
In May, the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement revealed that Teoh's death has classified as NFA.
Following the revelation, the AG-C said that there was insufficien t evidence to prove any offence against any individual under the law.
Teoh was found dead on July 16, 2009, at the Plaza Masalam building after giving a statement to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th floor of the same building.
He was the political secretary to then Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, who was the Selangor executive councillor for local government, legalisation of illegal factories, and new village development.
On Jan 5, 2011, the Shah Alam Coroner's Court ruled that Teoh's death in 2009 was not due to suicide or murder, and found that there was no third party in his death case.
On July 21, 2011, the Royal Commission of Inquiry formed to investigate Teoh's death ruled that his death was due to suicide.
On Sept 5, 2014, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling on Teoh's death, ruling that his death was the result of unlawful acts by one or more unknown persons.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
18 hours ago
- The Star
Can you ever be completely sure your clothes weren't made in a sweatshop?
The only way a fashion brand can ensure that a factory abides by the rules is to fully own it. The fact is, many companies also contract out to factories that sometimes then subcontract. Photo: Freepik Ever since the 2013 disaster at Rana Plaza in Bangladesh, the deadliest accident in the history of the garment industry, it has been impossible for anyone to deny knowing that there is a labour crisis in the modern fashion world. It is one that prioritises the constant production of more and cheaper stuff over the safety and livelihoods of many of the people employed to make that stuff. Since then, a variety of laws and private agreements have been put in place to supposedly change this reality, but in fact every year seems to bring new revelations about fashion brands being caught for working with manufacturers that enforce sweatshop conditions. Once upon a time these revelations centred primarily on fast-fashion or mass-fashion brands working with factories far overseas, but lately, they have also come from luxury houses that are working with factories in Italy. Brands such as Dior, Armani, Valentino, Montblanc and Loro Piana have all gotten in trouble because of factories in Italy said to be operating with abusive conditions. Often the factories that have been subcontracted by factories the luxury brands officially employ, though similar stories have been made public since the release of the 2007 documentary Luxury Slaves . Read more: Has luxury fashion lost its appeal? Signs of shopper fatigue persist This is particularly jarring, because for years luxury brands justified their high price tags by pointing to the quality of both the materials and the labour as well as the know-how involved in creating their products. The implication was that part of what you were paying for was the security that what you were buying was made in a responsible way, by people who were fairly paid for their expertise. This is why 'Made in Italy' and 'Made in France' became synonyms for 'made well'. Not anymore. These days, policing supply chains can feel like playing Whac-a-Mole. As soon as one bad actor is exposed, another one pops up. If you want to know how bad it is, check out the investigations of a nongovernmental organisation called Transparentem that is focused on stopping modern slavery. It has looked into the supply chains of more than 100 apparel companies. So what's a consumer to do? It's not enough to check to see if a brand claims to demand a code of conduct by their suppliers. The only way a brand can ensure that a factory abides by the rules is to fully own it. And while brands such as Louis Vuitton and Hermes do, many companies also contract out to factories that sometimes then subcontract. A lot of them, it turns out, don't have complete pictures of where their products are made. As luxury has spread, the fashion supply chain has become ever more far-flung and complicated. Often single factories cannot produce the quantities demanded to ensure growth. As sales slow and consumers rebel against the constantly rising prices of handbags and cashmere coats, companies have to increase their profit, and some have done it by paying less on the back end. Indeed, Ben Skinner, the founder of Transparentem, recommends looking at a 2023 benchmarking study conducted by the Business & Human Rights Resource Center and KnowTheChain. He said that the study 'found that many luxury brands scored poorly, with brands such as Burberry, Ferragamo, LVMH (owner of Loro Piana) and Prada ranking near the bottom'. Read more: 'Moving far too slow': Fashion labels lag behind on sustainability pledges In the end, the safest approach for those looking for certainty about how their clothes are made would be to think small and local. Companies such as Alabama Chanin offer clothes handmade by artisans in the community, using cotton sourced, ginned and dyed by onshore mills. It's the fashion equivalent of 'know your own food'. The products are more expensive because of it, but it may be a taste worth acquiring. – ©2025 The New York Times Company/Vanessa Friedman This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-deputy chairman fails in review bid over order for fresh insider trading trial
A Court of Appeal bench said there is no breach of natural justice in the findings of the previous panel. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has rejected a review application by a former executive deputy chairman of Malaysian Merchant Marine Bhd, whose insider trading case was ordered by another Court of Appeal bench to be reheard in the High Court. A three-member bench chaired by Justice Ruzima Ghazali said Ramesh Rajaratnam's application had no merit because there was no breach of natural justice committed by the previous bench. Ruzima said the previous panel, in its grounds of judgment, did not base its decision solely on several provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). 'They addressed at length the points and authorities raised by parties. There is no breach of natural justice in the findings of the previous panel,' he said. Justices Azmi Ariffin and Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz also heard the application. Ramesh had been found guilty by a sessions court on three charges of insider trading, but the High Court set aside the decision upon his appeal. His complaint was that the previous panel only looked into Sections 173, 180, 182(a) and 422 of the CPC in setting aside his acquittal and ordering a rehearing of his appeal before a new High Court judge. He said this was not canvassed before the panel and only appeared in the grounds of judgment. Ruzima said the threshold for review was high. 'As the apex court, as in this case, we have always been cautious when exercising the power of review of its earlier decision, as on the face of it, it goes against the principle of finality,' he said. He said review powers of the court may only be exercised in exceptional cases if there had been a significant injustice or the applicant had no alternative remedy. Lawyers Gurdial Singh Nijar and Abraham Au appeared for Ramesh in today's proceedings, while Hasley Tajudin, Law Wen Zhen and Danial Ariff Tung represented the Securities Commission Malaysia. Last year, the Court of Appeal said the High Court, as an appellate court, could not decide an appeal solely on the trial court's errors or omissions. Justice Wong Kian Kheong said the High Court had a judicial duty under Section 316 of the CPC to consider the merits of the case. '(Otherwise), there would have been an abdication of the High Court's judicial duty,' he said in the judgment setting aside Ramesh's acquittal. Wong said the High Court was also duty-bound to consider whether the errors or omissions by the trial court had caused a failure of justice as stated under Section 422 of the CPC. On May 6, 2024, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, now a Federal Court judge, led a three-member bench in allowing the prosecution's appeal, and remitted the matter to be heard by a new High Court judge. The other member of the bench was Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim. Vazeer said even though there was judicial copying in the sessions court's grounds of decision, and it was a non-speaking judgment, the High Court committed a legal error in granting an acquittal. Ramesh was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court on April 29, 2015 with three counts of insider trading under Section 188(2)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007. On Sept 11, 2019, the trial judge convicted him on all three charges. and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a fine of RM3 million on each charge. The prison terms were ordered to run concurrently. Insider trading carries a punishment of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years and a fine of not less than RM1 million. On May 20, 2021, the High Court allowed Ramesh's appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence on all three charges. At the Court of Appeal, the Securities Commission, with the public prosecutor's consent, decided to pursue its appeal on one charge only.
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- New Straits Times
Appeals court orders return of Port Dickson land after fraudulent sale
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has affirmed a High Court decision to return a parcel of land in Port Dickson to its rightful owner, after it was transferred through a series of fraudulent transactions. A three-judge panel led by Datuk S. Nantha Balan ruled that both Top ATC Industries Sdn Bhd and businessman Lee Kok Chian had failed to prove they were bona fide (genuine) purchasers of the land, which had been fraudulently transferred by an imposter posing as the registered trustee. The appellate court also upheld the High Court's order for the land to be re-registered in the name of its rightful owner, Cheok Lam Chuan, who filed the suit after discovering the illicit transfer in 2018. On Jan 21, 2016, the subject land was fraudulently "transferred" to Fu Zhi Mao Group Sdn Bhd before the latter entered a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Top ATC Industries on Feb 24, the same year. On March 29, 2016, (barely 6 days after the transfer of the land), Top ATC Industries entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Lee. The transfer of the subject land took place on Nov 1, 2016. "Apart from the sinister conclusions that are to be derived from the suspicious timing of the transaction between Fu Zhi Mao Group and Top ATC Industries, there is the added fact that the latter had failed to prove that it had made any payment to the former. "Lee ought to have suspected that the previous transaction could be fraudulent due to the short timeline of sale of the land. "He should have undertaken the ordinary precautions and investigations as a reasonable and prudent purchaser. "However, Lee deliberately shut his eyes to the obvious and refrained from checking or making further inquiries about the earlier land transfer," he said in his ground of judgment yesterday. The court also upheld the lower court's finding that neither Top ATC Industries nor Lee had acted in good faith in their dealings over the land transaction. The court also held that the Negri Sembilan Registrar of Titles and Director of Lands and Mines were negligent for failing to detect or prevent the fraudulent registration. The appellate court affirmed all the lower court's orders, including: -Cancelling the registration of the land in Lee's name and restoring it to Cheok. -The award of RM100,000 in aggravated damages against Top ATC and Lee. -An order for both parties to pay RM50,000 each in legal costs to Cheok. -A cost order of RM10,000 against the two land officers.
