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

    CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

    In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

    TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

    In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

    ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

    In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

    TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

    In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

    CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

    In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

    EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

    In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

    Read More »
    16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
    zh_TWZH
    en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
    × 联系我们