Today's case has nothing to do with business, tax or finance matters. However, it is something we should all take note of, because it touches on our rights over our own assets when dealing with the government.

𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 A police report accusing the respondent's mother of criminal breach of trust led to a separate investigation, this time under anti money laundering law. Based on that investigation, a police officer froze four of the respondent's bank accounts in June 2014. A prosecutor later seized one of those accounts. The respondent was never charged with anything. Under the law, once twelve months pass without a charge, the money is supposed to be released automatically. That did not happen here. The respondent had to go to court just to force the bank to hand back his own money, and even then he only got it back in August 2018, more than three years after he was legally entitled to it. He then sued the police officers, the prosecutor, the police chief and the Government, saying the account freeze was never valid in the first place because the officer never gave a proper reason for it.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭 The government side argued two things. First, the officer who originally lodged the police report said he had nothing to do with freezing or seizing the accounts, so he should not be blamed. Second, everyone on the government side argued that the prosecutor could not be sued at all, because the actual person holding that job was never named in the lawsuit, and the law requires the specific officer to be named before the Government itself can be held responsible.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 Lim Hui Jin argued that the officer who actually froze his accounts never gave proper reasons for doing so, as the law requires. He also argued that once a year passed with no charge and no application to keep the money, it should have been returned to him straight away, and the fact that it was not amounted to serious wrongdoing that deserved higher compensation.

𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 The court agreed the officer who only lodged the original report should not be held responsible, and agreed the prosecutor could not be sued since he was never properly named. But the officer who actually froze the accounts was found to have done wrong. She never gave proper grounds for the freeze, she failed to release the money on time, and the evidence showed she acted with bad intent, so she could not use the usual legal protection given to officers acting in good faith. Because of this, the police chief and the Government were held responsible for her actions. The court also raised the compensation from RM200,000 to RM500,000, since four accounts were frozen wrongly for a year and the seized money was kept from him for almost four years. A further RM100,000 in punitive damages was kept in place, legal costs were reduced to RM50,000, and interest of 5 percent a year was ordered on the full amount until it is fully paid.

If you wish to focus on running and growing your business, our CFO advisory team can take care of your accounting, payroll, tax planning and compliance matters for you. Feel free to WhatsApp us at 010-246 2151.