Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

CRIMINAL LAW– MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION – POWER OF ARREST AND EXTENSION OF REMAND

The recent arrest of company directors and continued remand using Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code has sparked widespread unrest about the possible misuse of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (“MACC”) power.

What are the powers of MACC on detention of suspects?

  • Section 49(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act 2009”) says all offences under the MACC Act are “seizable offence”(s).
  • “Seizable offence” means offence which MACC officer may arrest without a warrant.

What happened after a person is detained by MACC?

  • A person can be detained by the MACC for offences investigated under the MACC Act.
  • However, he cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate. This rule is set out in Article 5 clause 4 of the Federal Constitution.

What happened if he needs to be detained for more than 24 hours?

  • Article 5 clause 4 of the Federal Constitution says a person cannot be detained for more than 24 hours.
  • MACC is not allowed to utilize Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) to go before a Magistrate to extend a remand pursuant to the principle of generalibus specialia derogant.
  • Hence, when a person is detained and further investigation is required, MACC has to first release the person from custody on a bail or bond with or without sureties.

What happened if a person is unable to pay the bail or bond?

  • The difficulty arises when a person cannot afford to pay the bail or bond requested by MACC.
  • He still cannot be arrested for more than 24 hours. In such situation, a judicial review may be filed to determine what is the “reasonable sum of money” as bail and bond.

Under what circumstance can a person be produced before the Magistrate for extension of remand?

  • This is set out in Section 49(2), (3) and (4) of the MACC Act 2009.
  • A person can only be produced before a Magistrate when the condition of the bail or bond is broken or likely to be broken and he/she is re-arrested and not released within 24 hours.
  • Keeping in mind, this only happens when there is a re-arrest.
  • MACC is not allowed to produce a person before the Magistrate for extension of remand without going through the processes in Sub-Sections 49(2), (3) and (4). The Magistrate would not have power to grant remand under the circumstances.

What happened if MACC detained a person for more than 24 hours on the first arrest or re-arrest without production before a Magistrate?

  • The arrest would be unlawful. The person so arrest may sue MACC for wrongful arrest

    Related News:

    https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/665321

    Back to Latest Legal Updates

    Recent Post

    ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

    In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments

    GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

    In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments

    MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

    In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments

    JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

    In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments

    DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

    In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments

    CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

    In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

    Read More »
    14 July ,2026 No Comments
    en_USEN
    zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN