A LAW firm has lost its bid to review the decision of an earlier Federal Court panel that lawyers cannot claim legal fees owed to it from monies seized under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUA). 

Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co’s review application was dismissed today by a three-member panel of the Federal Court comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah and Federal Court judges Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. 

In delivering the court decision, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the firm’s application did not meet the threshold requirement under Rules 137 of the Rules of Federal Court 1995. 

He said the court agreed with deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar that a paragraph in the majority judgment by the previous Federal Court panel was merely observation and did not form the basis of the judgment. 

Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the court found that the majority judgment by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli and Federal Court judge Hasnah Mohamed Hashim could not be said to be unjust. 

On June 22 last year, the Federal Court three-man bench dismissed Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co’s appeal to collect legal fees amounting to RM398,722 from money that was forfeited under AMLATFPUA. The dissenting decision came from Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan, the third judge in the quorum, who was in favour of allowing the law firm’s appeal. 

In urging the court to set aside the majority judgment and for an order for the appeal to be reheard, the firm’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said paragraph 28 in the majority judgment was speculation by the judges and was unjust as they suggested the law firm had engaged in unethical conduct when producing bills for legal services to its client. 

He said the majority judgment did not recognise that the law firm had given evidence of the services rendered and did not simply produce legal bills. He said there was also a breach of the rules of natural justice because the judges did not invite counsel to submit on the point before making the ruling. 

He highlighted paragraph 28 which stated, “And if that were to be allowed, all that a law firm needs to do to succeed in its claim under Section 61(4) is simply to produce the bills for the legal services that it rendered to its client, as done by the appellant (the law firm) in this present case.” 

Mohd Dusuki, representing the Attorney General’s Chambers, said the paragraph in the majority judgment was merely a remark made by the judges regarding their worries if the claim was allowed.  

He said the monies were already forfeited by the government and could not be returned to the firm’s client to pay for legal fees. 

Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co had sought RM398,722 as its fees for representing Amar Asyraf Zolkepli, who was investigated by police for offences under the Computer Crimes Act 1997. 

The 2016 investigation revealed that Amar possessed computer software that enabled access to the Malaysian Immigration System without needing a password or fingerprint. Amar had then provided the software to a syndicate, which used it to unlawfully approve permits for foreign workers for a fee of RM1,000 for every approval. 

In a follow-up action, the government seized RM553,918.44 from Amar, an apartment in Batu Caves, and an Audi S Line car. 

The law firm had then sought for its legal fees to be deducted from Amar’s seized assets for services rendered from the day he was detained by police up to the time of forfeiture proceedings. 

The law firm’s claim was allowed by the Temerloh High Court but reversed by the Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision. – Bernama, August 14, 2023.