SIBU: The High Court here on Thursday (June 25) dismissed an appeal by a man facing capital drug charges, affirming a lower court’s decision to forfeit his Honda Accord car to the government after ruling that he fell into an “evidential vacuum” regarding how the vehicle was originally financed.
Judicial Commissioner Alvin Leong Yin Yuan ruled in open court that there was no appealable error in the November 3, 2025 decision made by Sessions Court Judge Musyiri Peet.
The lower court had ordered the vehicle, to be forfeited under Section 32(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988.
The case highlights a stringent legal reality under Malaysia’s anti-narcotics asset forfeiture laws, where the burden of proving that property is untainted lies entirely on the claimant, not the prosecution.
The legal saga began on October 10, 2024, when the appellant, Lay Hang Hui, was arrested at a shopping mall for possession of dangerous drugs.
He was subsequently charged with drug trafficking under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, a charge that carries severe statutory penalties.
Following his arrest, police acting under Section 25(1) of the Forfeiture of Property Act seized the Honda Accord alongside cash totaling RM6,600.
Lay subsequently mounted a legal claim under Section 32(1)(c) of the Act to recover the car, leading to a full trial before the Sibu Sessions Court.
During the initial trial, Lay testified that he had purchased the Honda Accord roughly 15 years prior, in 2010, for RM35,000.
He claimed that at the time, he was working as a bank clerk earning a monthly salary of RM1,800 to RM1,900, and that the car was financed via a hire-purchase loan.
To demonstrate current legitimate income, Lay pointed to his business, Tung Seng Restaurant & Café, which he established in November 2020 and which yields a monthly income of RM5,000.
However, the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP), Mark Kenneth Netto, exposed a total absence of corroborating paperwork.
Lay failed to produce the original hire-purchase agreement, loan documents, bank statements, loan repayment records, salary slips, or employment records confirming his tenure as a bank clerk.
Furthermore, the investigating officer, Sergeant Robinson Born, testified that Lay’s initial statement given to the police during the investigation made no mention whatsoever of his alleged employment as a bank clerk.
While Lay’s defence argued that his coffee shop was a verified, tax-paying entity, the prosecution countered that operating a legitimate business in 2020 could not retroactively explain the lawful acquisition of an asset bought in 2010.
In arguments before the High Court, Netto cited established precedents, including Public Prosecutor v Tan Lee Kok, stressing that Section 32 proceedings reverse the traditional criminal burden of proof.
He stated that the Public Prosecutor bears no burden to prove illegality, and that it is the claimant who must positively prove that he is lawfully entitled to the property and that it is not illegal property.
Netto added that a failure on any single limb of this statutory burden is completely fatal to the claim.
Defence counsel Daren Ling contended that the Sessions Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against Lay, and argued that the records for these old financial documents were impossible to retrieve.
Dismissing the appeal, Justice Leong swept aside the defence’s objections regarding Lay’s current business records.
The judge stated that from his perusal of the documents and upon hearing the counsels, he saw no sufficient evidence relating to the appellant’s income in the 2010s.
He further noted that the evidence relating to Lay’s income in the 2020s was not material, and concluded that he found no appealable error in the decision of the Sessions Court.
While the asset forfeiture matter has reached its conclusion at the High Court level, Lay’s criminal liabilities continue to mount in a parallel case.
Immediately following the dismissal of the asset appeal, Lay was brought before the same High Court for case management regarding his criminal trial.
ENDS WITH NO PIC (Use illustration)
