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

    LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

    Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

    This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

    Read More »
    8 February ,2026 尚無留言

    THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

    Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

    Read More »
    8 February ,2026 尚無留言

    STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

    In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

    Read More »
    1 February ,2026 尚無留言

    UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

    In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

    Read More »
    1 February ,2026 尚無留言

    WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

    In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

    Read More »
    1 February ,2026 尚無留言

    NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

    In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

    Read More »
    1 February ,2026 尚無留言
    zh_TWZH
    en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
    × 联系我们