Latest news with #TohPuanNa'imah
Malay Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
MACC seizes Ilham Tower again after getting approval linked to Daim's family assets
KUALA LUMPUR, June 5 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) today said it has received approval to seize Ilham Tower again. In a statement issued today, the anti-graft agency said it will now confiscate the property — a prominent corporate tower in Kuala Lumpur linked to the late Tun Daim Zainuddin. 'This seizure is based on a Notice of Seizure of Immovable Property under Section 51(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA 2001) dated June 4, 2025,' read the statement. The MACC said the seizure was approved under Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593). It added that a deputy public prosecutor confirmed that information provided by the MACC shows the building is linked to an offence under subsection 4(1) of the AMLATFPUAA 2001. This is the second time Ilham Tower has been seized by the MACC. The first seizure took place on December 18, 2023, after Daim failed to declare his family's financial assets as requested by the MACC. Ilham Tower is a 60-storey skyscraper in central Kuala Lumpur and is owned by Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary controlled by Daim's widow, Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid, and their two sons.
Malay Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
MACC says freeze of Daim's widow's assets stops disposal during probe
KUALA LUMPUR, June 5 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) said it froze seven properties and one bank account belonging to the late Tun Daim Zainuddin's widow, Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid, to prevent the assets from being disposed of while investigations are ongoing. MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the move was part of the commission's preliminary actions to facilitate further investigation. 'In this case, we have submitted a court application for a prohibition order to freeze the overseas assets. If such an order is not obtained, there is a high possibility that the assets, believed not to have been declared, may be disposed of,' he said in a statement today. Media reports yesterday stated that three luxury homes in London are among the seven properties and one bank account said to belong to Na'imah and her family, involving a total value of £132 million (RM758.2 million), which were frozen by the MACC. MACC investigations found that the movable and immovable assets were linked to alleged offences under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) 2001. The MACC's application, represented by deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat, to freeze the assets was granted by High Court Judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid in an ex parte proceeding yesterday. Meanwhile, former MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad said the legally accurate term in this case is a prohibitory order, not a freezing order. He explained that 'freezing' typically refers to action under Section 44 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), which usually involves bank accounts and specific financial instruments. In contrast, this case involves a prohibitory order under Section 53 of AMLA, which pertains to restrictions on transactions involving overseas assets suspected of being linked to unlawful activities. 'However, the issuance of a prohibitory order does not imply or presume that the assets in question were obtained through corruption or illegal means,' he added. 'The purpose of this order is simply to block any transactions involving the specified assets while MACC investigations are ongoing. It is a temporary measure to maintain the status quo and prevent disposal of the assets during the investigation,' he said in a statement. Dzulkifli, who is also a lawyer, noted that the High Court's prohibitory order was issued through an ex parte application, meaning it was made without prior notice or the presence of the affected parties. At that stage, he added, the individuals subject to the order have not yet been given the opportunity to respond or challenge the application in court. — Bernama
