Share
- Ilham Tower, owned by former finance minister, the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, and his widow Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, is subject to two forfeiture proceedings by the MACC, which are being challenged.
KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 17): Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd that operate the iconic 60-storey Ilham Tower, located on prime land in the city centre, have filed an originating summons (OS) to bar its company secretary from sharing information about the companies with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
The building, owned by former finance minister, the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, and his widow Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid (pictured), is subject to two forfeiture proceedings by the MACC, which are being challenged.
Both companies, which have Na’imah as the director, filed the OS through Messrs Zharif Nizamuddin on Sept 9.
In their application sighted by The Edge through a file search, the companies sought a declaration that the company secretary, Rebecca Lee Ewe Ai, does not have the right or power to pass documents or records kept under her care, which cannot be accessed by the public or through the Companies Commission Malaysia (CCM), to the MACC via the MACC provision under Section 30(1) (b) of the MACC Act, without the express or written permission by the companies.
In addition, they are also seeking a permanent injunction to bar her, either on her own or her workers or agents, from handing any documents which cannot be publicly accessed or are not in the CCM records that she kept privately, and from sharing it with the MACC pursuant to Section 30(1) (b) of the MACC Act without the express or written approval from the plaintiffs.
Further, the company is seeking costs of the application and other relief deemed necessary by the court. They also applied for an ex-parte injunction which was heard on Wednesday before High Court judge Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya.
Wan Muhammad Amin has granted an ad-interim injunction against the company secretary until Oct 9.
Separately, there is also a case management to the prosecution’s forfeiture application of the building before a High Court senior assistant registrar.
Correspondence with company secretary
The application is supported by an affidavit in support, affirmed by Na’imah, where she claimed that the MACC had sought an order on Aug 28 for the production of corporate documents and records of the two companies which Lee had said she would have to comply with by Sept 2.
“The plaintiff, through a letter on Sept 2, informed Lee that based on the provisions of the Companies Act 2016, the MACC could only access documents which are publicly available and those in CCM’s care after fees had been paid.
“On Sept 3, Lee informed the plaintiffs that she would present the documents as MACC demanded according to the order. The plaintiffs, through a letter dated Sept 4, emphasised again to Lee that documents which are publicly available via an application or payment of fee through CCM can be given to MACC while other documents cannot be submitted or handed,” Na’imah said.
Na’imah said on Sept 8 that Lee, through her lawyers from Messrs Ambbi Balakrishnan & Associates, informed the companies that the MACC had asked her for a summary of the documents and records of the two company records, with Na’imah claiming that the company secretary had failed to respond to the two letters despatched on Sept 2 and Sept 4, instead opting to continue with the passing of said documents to the anti-graft agency.
Na’imah noted that there had been two forfeiture attempts made by the MACC on the building, which is now under challenge—the second challenge is scheduled to be heard on Thursday (Sept 18) and the application by the MACC for Lee to produce the documents is related to this.
Na’imah reiterated that she has had to make this application as Lee, as company secretary, should be restrained and does not have any power to share the documents, which are not publicly accessible to anyone, including the MACC.
She states that Section 351 of the Companies Act 2016 allows the court to hear this OS and it has the jurisdiction to allow the orders sought by the two companies.
Besides the challenge on the two forfeitures, the MACC has also applied to obtain a prohibitory order against Na’imah or her agents on assets in the United Kingdom, the British crown dependency of Jersey, and Singapore.
The UK assets are worth £132 million, while the ones in Jersey are said to be worth US$157.5 million (approximately RM667 million) and £85 million (RM490.7 million). There is another request to freeze about RM544 million worth of assets in Singapore.
As Penang girds itself towards the last lap of its Penang2030 vision, check out how the residential segment is keeping pace in EdgeProp’s special report: PENANG Investing Towards 2030.
