Frequently Asked Questions on Judicial Review (司法审查(JR)的常见问答)

judicial-review

Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) raided Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd (GMSB) 1st October 2012, taking away Gold and RM CASH for the so-called “Investigation into the six (6) accusations.”

Q 1: So, after five (5) long fatal suffering months, till to-date, no charge has been made against GMSB, legally, why can’t BNM release all Gold and RM CASH back to GMSB directly?

To answer this question and to understand it, let’s look at the law under AMLATFA 2001.

Section 44 AMLATFA, subsection  (1) states: Subject to section 50, where an enforcement agency, having the power to enforce the law under which a serious offence is committed, has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence has been, is being or is about to be committed by any person, it may issue an order freezing any property of that person or any terrorist property, as the case may be, wherever the property may be, or in his possession, under his control or due from any source to him.

Section 44 AMLATFA, subsection (5) states: An order made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after ninety days from the date of the order, if the person against whom the order was made has not been charged with an offence under this Act or a terrorism financing offence, as the case may be.

Section 50 AMLATFA, subsection (1) states: Where the Public Prosecutor is satisfied on information given to him by an investigating officer that any movable property, including any monetary instrument or any accretion to it, which is the subject–matter of an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence or evidence in relation to the commission of such offence or which is terrorist property, is in the possession, custody or control of a financial institution, he may, notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, after consultation with Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities Commission or the Labuan Offshore Financial Services Authority, as the case may be, by order direct the financial institution not to part with, deal in, or otherwise dispose of such property or any part of it until the order is revoked or varied.

Section 56 AMLATFA, subsection (1) states: Subject to section 61, where in respect of any property frozen or seized under this Act there is no prosecution or conviction for an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence, the Public Prosecutor may, before the expiration of twelve months from the date of the freeze or seizure, apply to a judge of the High Court for an order of forfeiture of that property if he is satisfied that such property had been obtained as a result of or in connection with an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence, as the case may be, or is terrorist property.

Answer: The Public Prosecutor (through the AG’s office) has the right to hold the gold and money of GMSB for 12 months from the date of the freeze or seizure (i.e. 1-10-2012).

Q 2: Why the Gold and RM CASH have to be recovered from BNM through the Malaysian Court?

Answer: Because we cannot just walk into BNM and demand the seized gold and cash to be returned back to us. Only way is to file a case of Judicial Review (JR) against BNM so that the court may make a decision giving rise to an appropriate order to be given to compel BNM to do according to the terms specified in the court  order.

 Q 3: If JR is not a lawsuit nor a litigation case, what is it?

Answer: JR is a special relief of the court and hence the court that has the power to deal with JR is the High Court (Special Powers) of the Appellate Division. Whereas for a normal lawsuit or litigation case (or sometimes know as a summons case), the court that deals with such cases would be the Civil Division.  See the difference? Therefore even the time frame taken to dispose each case is so much different between the two court divisions. JR may take only a matter of few months and a summons case may take a few years.

Q 4: Is JR the standard and effective course of action through the Malaysian Court where the Malaysian public can act against parties that have done wrong, even the National Banking Giant BNM?

Answer: JR is pretty much the standard and effective course of action if you want to take a governmental authority to court for suspected abuse of power or exercise of bad faith or mala fide in making a policy or decision. Therefore JR is a means for the judiciary to perform checks on the government (i.e. those holding the executive power).  It primarily is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process of the government. It is not concerned with the merits of the decision. Hence if the authority acts against or fails to act according to the will of Parliament (through the Acts of law), it is therefore said to be acting ultra vires (i.e. beyond its powers) and is unlawful. If so the court will interfere by reviewing the decision to determine the lawfulness of the decision, actions or omission. 

Q 5: Even if the Malaysian Court grants the Gennevarians JR application, what can be expected from the outcome of the JR? Can Gennevarians get back all Gold & RM CASH through GMSB?

Answer: There are three grounds for judicial review, namely illegality, unreasonableness or irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Once the court has identified and found the authority to be guilty on either one of the said grounds, the court has vast powers to deal with the offending authority. Once a JR court action is successful, the court may decide the raid and seizure by BNM to be unlawful and amongst the orders which it is empowered to give are damages, injunction, declaration and etc.

Q 6: Why the JR has to be applied by Gennevarians and not GMSB?

Answer: It must be clear that any party who is directly affected by the BNM’s action can take action. This need not be exclusively for GMSB to take first or Gennevians to do so. Either way, the applicant to the action must satisfy the condition of Locus Standi. Locus Standi means a person who is directly an aggrieved person as a result of the authority’s unjust action and that he has the standing in court to bring such an action against the offending party. It may not preclude GMSB to bring a case of JR against BNM even though Gennevians have done so earlier but so long as it is done within time (i.e. not being time barred).

Q 7: Would the JR applied by GMSB be more effective and proper?

Answer: A JR is a JR, it does not matter who is more effective and proper to bring the case up. So long as the applicant must bear in mind that he must satisfy the locus standi test. Of course GMSB being the direct aggrieved party to the raid is the best case scenario since its locus standi cannot so much be disputed.

Q 8: After five (5) long miserable months, what is the STAND of GMSB towards safe-guarding all Gennevarians’ interests?

Answer: It is pretty much anyone’s presumption that a company doing so well since its inception in 2009/2010 would not only safe-guard all Gennevians’ interest but most of all its own interest since it is the one who has most to lose considering its wide customer/consultant network base that spans throughout the whole of Malaysia. The ability and effort of the HelpDesk that was so quickly established throughout the country is a fine example of how strong that network can be which the company has so painstakingly built up over those years.

Q 9: Again, if JR is not a lawsuit nor a litigation case, will there be court hearings?

Answer: Being a court case, there will of course be court hearings, even for JR.  But the case will be inter parte in chambers so there will be no witnesses called and all statements of parties would be done by way of affidavits (i.e. sworn statements).

Q 10: Again, if JR is not a lawsuit nor a litigation case, what is the expected cost on legal fees?

Answer: The expected cost on legal fees can vary substantially between one lawyer to another. It also depends on whether Gennevarians want to go all out for the case or cease all action when we fail to obtain leave of the court to proceed with JR. To “open” the file, one can expect anything between RM20k – RM50k and full disposal of the case from RM300k – RM800k or more.  But it is important for Gennevarians to realize what is the purpose and expectations of the JR action as contrast to the final outcome of the case (i.e. winning or losing it).

Q 11: Again, if JR is not a lawsuit nor a litigation case, what is the expected period or duration of this JR?

Answer: Read answer to Q3 above.

Q 12: So, by making the Police Report and paying RM50.00 each, does it mean whatever happens, Gennevarians can recover all MONIES?

Answer: All Genevarians must be prepared to realize (and aware with eyes open) that JR is not an instant elixir or even a silver bullet to get instant and guaranteed result. It does not mean that we are assured to get back all our gold and monies from BNM because there is never a sure win in any court battle. However what is damned sure is that we Gennevarians are not going down quietly. If at all we go down, we will bring those Little Napoleons in BNM as well as the ruling government BN down with us.

RIP BNM-BN

Related Links

———————————————————————————————-

FAQ on JR – Chinese version
司法审查(JR)的常见问答

于2012年10月1日,马来西亞国家银行,以所谓"6项指控调查"为名,突击冻结金玉华(马)有限公司,取走了黄金和马币现金

问题一、

      至今已5个月,国行未能依法对金玉华公司做出任何指控。为何国行迟迟不能解冻金玉华被扣押的黄金和现金?

要回答这个问题,须了解2011年反贪污/洗黑钱法令(AMLAFA 2001),让我们来参照此法律条文的部分内容。

第44(1)条款AMLAFA规定:根据苐50条款,执法机构有权力对触犯严重罪行的一方釆取行动。在第4(1)条款所述罪案条文或资助恐怖主义,亦可在合理情况下质疑並对付已发生或正在进行中的罪案涉及者。执法机构有权发出禁令以冻结疑犯或恐怖分子的任何财产,包括其他地方所置的财产,及其名下所有收入来源,胥视情况而定。

第44条5款AMLAFA规定:根据第(1)款法命情况;如果在有关禁令期满90天后,国行执法当局尚未对有关公司或个人提出有效的罪状控诉,則禁令将取消执行,胥视情况而定。

第50条(1)款AMLAFA规定:有关调查官员对当事人的嫌疑罪狀必须向检察官报告;根据报告显示,当事人在金融机构的财物存放、监管或监督的全部可移动财物,包括任何货币工具或者其衍生工具;将根据第4(1)条款所述罪案条文或涉及或资助恐怖主义,检察官经过国家银行、证券委员会或纳闽境外金融服务管理局咨询后,有权对金融机构做出指示,有关财物不可离弃、处理或处置,一直到该禁令被撤销或修改。

第56条(1)款AMLAFA规定:根据第61条款,任何财物在此条款中被冻结或扣押的,如果在第4(1)条款所述罪案或涉及资助乖恐怖主义条款中,而没有提出有效罪状控诉。但是,在禁令日至12个月期满前,如果检察官認为,当事人或公司的嫌疑罪狀已触犯第4(1)条款所述罪案条文或涉及资助恐怖主义 ,则可以向高等法院的法官申请没收所有财物。

答: 在首席检察官允许下,检察官有权冻结或扣押GMSB有关黄金和款项为期十二个月,即由2012年10月1日起。

问题二、 

        为什么我们的黄金和款项被国行扣押,而须向马来西亞法院取回呢?

答:根据法令,我们是不能够直接向国行要回所扣押的黄金和款项。唯一的方法是针对国行的司法审查(JR)立案,如此法院所作出决定,,国行须依拮法院所发出的指定命令,依适当顺序行事。

问题三、

      如果司法审查立案为非官司,亦非诉讼,是什么呢?

答:司法审查立案是特别为高等法院纾缓案件负荷而设的上诉法庭。此法庭有特别权力处理司法审查JR案件。然而对于一般官司或诉讼䅁件(所谓传票),皆立案于民事法庭。有何分别呢?時间上,司法审查立案程序仅需要数个月,而民事法庭则可能需要数年的时间

问题四、

     马来西亞人民是允许在马来西亞法院提控任何人或团体所犯下的错误行为,如国家金融巨头,国行。但是,是否司法审查立案为一般标准且有效的行动方针呢?

答:司法审查立案是一般認可的标准和有效行动,以法律途径把有关政府部门涉嫌滥权或行使不诚实或欺骗行为的政策或决定,提告于法庭。所以司法审查立案是司法机构专于检查应付政府行政部门的差错(指掌握行政权力者)。它主要关注的是政府决策过程中的合法性;它不关注决策的对错。因此,如果当局违反或没有釆取根据国会的意愿(法律)的行为被認为是越权(即超出其权力),是不合法的。如果是这样,法庭将干扰以通过审查来确定其决策、行动或遗漏的合法性。

问题五、

     即使马来西亞允许Gennevarians 的司法审查申请案成立,我们预期从此立案得到什么结果呢?  是否我们可以从金玉华公司取回所有黄金和马币现金呢?

答:司法审查有三个理由:不合法性、不合理性和程序不恰当。一旦法院审判有关权威犯下任一上述理由,法院有权力处理有关违规政府部门。如果司法审查案胜诉,法院可以裁决国行的搜查和扣押行动为非法行为。另外,法院亦可授权发出庭令给予损害赔偿、解除强制令等等。

问题六、

          为什么由客户和顧问釆取司法审查的法律行动,而非金玉华公司?

答:由于国行的行动而直接受影响的任何人,很明显的都可以釆取行动。是客户或者公司来进行法律行动,是没有特别规定谁先谁后。无论那一方,申请者都须符合法律规定,即诉讼资格Locus Standi。䜣讼资格指任何人是由于权威的不公正行动结果而倒致受寃屈的法庭地位;对违规者提出的法律行为。雖然客户先釆取法律行动,但亦不排除金玉华公司,日后会加入此司法审查行动,只要在法律允准的时间内完成。

问题七、

       是否由金玉华公司釆取司法审查立案为更有效且适当?

答:在法律上,重点是诉讼资格Locus Standi,申请人必须牢记的是他必须符合此资格。至于是谁来申请司法审查为有效或适当,这並不是很重要。当然,金玉华公司是此突击行动的直接受害者,其诉讼资格是较明显地无争议。

问题八、

       经历了5个月折磨,请问金玉华公司对其客户及顧问的利益维护的立场是什么?

答:自从2009/2010开始营业至被国行扣押期间,金玉华公司的业务成绩蒸蒸日上且突飞猛进,业务遍跡全国。主要是维护对客户的利益和实现承诺。国行的扣押行动,金玉华公司是受到很大的伤害,其多年培养训练的广大且支持的客户群和顧问,皆化为乌有。服务台HelpDesk能够迅速在全国建立,已说明公司多年辛苦建立的网络。

问题九、

        同样的,如果司法审查不是官司,亦非诉讼案件,是否有法庭听证会?

答:作为一个法庭案件,当然司法审查亦不例外,也有法庭听证会。但是此案件将是内部单方面inter parte 法庭,所以没有传喚证人且所有证词將通过誓章方式(affidavits),即宣誓证词。

问题十、

         同样的,如果司法审查不是官司,亦非䜣讼案件,法律费用是多少呢?

答:决定法律费用有两大因素。其一是不同资历律师有很大的费用差异;其二为我们是否要全力以赴完成此案件。如果当我们的申请未能获得法院的许可来进行司法审查时,是否持续下个程序?

初階段的律师费用,预计为马币二万至五万;全程案件的律师费用预计为马币三十万至八十万不等。但是最重要的是我们了解对司法审查行动的目的和期望,对照于此案件的最终结果(即输赢)。

问题十一、

        同样的,如果司法审查不是官司,亦非䜣讼案件,那么司法审查需多久时间来完成?

答:请参考以上问题三。

问题十二、

        是否报警和付款马币50元之后,意味着无论发生什么亊情,我们都能取回所有款项?

答:我们必须知道和警觉,任何法律事件㫮无有保证必胜。司法审查法律行动,亦非仙丹灵药,不能够保证从国行取回所有的黄金和款项。但是,我们确定的是我们要反击,不悄悄的坐以待毙;如果我们失败了,也要把国行里的"小人"和国阵政府㫮拖下水,以示不满!

译者:Colin

View Comments at GMS FB

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Frequently Asked Questions on Judicial Review (司法审查(JR)的常见问答)

  1. Pingback: UPDATES: Briefing on How to Get Your Gold and Money Back from BNM | Genneva Malaysia Supporters

  2. Pingback: NOTICE TO GENNEVARIANS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE JR CLASS ACTION ONLY | Genneva Malaysia Supporters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s