Former MACC chief questions legality of second seizure of Ilham Tower

New Straits Times

06-06-2025

Former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad has questioned the legality of the second seizure of Ilham Tower, suggesting the move may exceed the bounds of Malaysian law.
Now a practising lawyer, Dzulkifli pointed out that the asset had already been seized under Section 38(1) of the MACC Act on Dec 18, 2023.
He said action under Section 38 requires the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) to be satisfied that the asset in question - Ilham Tower - either constitutes the proceeds of, or is evidence related to, a corruption offence.
"If no charges are brought or civil forfeiture proceedings initiated before June 17, 2025 - the end of the statutory 18-month period - it raises a fundamental question as to whether the original seizure was justified," he said in a statement today.
Dzulkifli, the MACC's third chief commissioner, added that although the MACC Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) operate under different legal frameworks, two overlapping seizure orders on the same property may be seen as an overreach of authority.
"This is because legal powers must be exercised based on necessity, fairness, and proportionality," he said.
It was reported yesterday that Ilham Tower, located on Jalan Binjai, had once again been seized by MACC.
The commission said it had obtained approval from the DPP to seize the building, which is linked to the late former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin.
According to the agency, the latest seizure was carried out via an Immovable Property Seizure Notice dated June 4, 2025, under Section 51(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).
Dzulkifli said enforcement actions must be grounded in clear legal thresholds, not procedural convenience.
"If AMLA is invoked merely to maintain control of the asset as the earlier MACC order nears expiry, it may undermine the rule of law and call into question the legitimacy of the original seizure," he said.
He also noted that the absence of further action by June 18 would suggest that Ilham Tower was never genuinely linked to a corruption offence under the MACC Act.
"This raises a critical question: why is there now a need for a new seizure order under Section 51 of AMLA? What new evidence, if any, justifies this action?" he asked.
He added that the Ilham Tower case presents a significant test of how far enforcement and prosecutorial powers may be exercised within the law.
"With the June 17 deadline approaching, all eyes are on the DPP's next move. Will there be a charge? Forfeiture? Or will the order lapse - signalling that the asset was wrongly targeted from the outset?" he said.