Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

    REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

    This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

    Read More »
    3 April ,2025 No Comments

    ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

    When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

    Read More »
    24 February ,2025 No Comments

    CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

    In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

    Read More »
    24 February ,2025 No Comments

    SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

    In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

    Read More »
    24 February ,2025 No Comments

    CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

    A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

    Read More »
    24 February ,2025 No Comments
    en_USEN
    zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
    × Contact Us