PUTRAJAYA: 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 Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah and Federal Court judges Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk 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 Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar that a paragraph in the majority judgment by the previous Federal Court panel was merely observation by the judges 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 Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli and Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim cannot 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 Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan, who was 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 Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said paragraph 28 in the majority judgment was a speculation by the judges and was unjust as the judges suggested that the law firm had engaged in an unethical conduct to simply produce the bills for the legal services that it rendered to its client.
He said the majority judgment did not recognise that the law firm had given evidence of the work and services rendered and did not just simply produce bills for the legal services it rendered. 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 to the court that Paragraph 28 which states, “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 passing comment made by the judges in regard to their worries if the claim was allowed.
He said the monies were already forfeited by the government and cannot be returned to the firm’s client to pay for legal fees to his counsel for services rendered.
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 a computer software which enabled access to the Malaysian Immigration System (MyIMMs) without the need for a password or finger print. Amar had then provided the software to a syndicate which used it to unlawfully approve the permits for foreign workers for a fees 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 TFSI CVT(A).
The law firm had then sought for its legal fees to be deducted from Amar’s seized assets for services rendered to their client from the day he was detained by the police up to the time of the 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
