Norzilati Izhani binti Zainal @ Zainol

On the court record

Norzilati Izhani binti Zainal @ Zainol appears in the corpus on the prosecution and forfeiture side of criminal and proceeds-of-crime litigation, argued from the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) to the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan). One Federal Court matter, appearing for the respondent, concerned the forfeiture of property where there is no prosecution under section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, and turned on the standard of proof required to establish the predicate offence — whether cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code or unlicensed or illegal deposit-taking — and the limits of appellate interference with findings of fact. A Court of Appeal matter, appearing for the respondent, was an appeal against a conviction and a four-year sentence imposed under section 26C of the anti-trafficking-in-persons legislation, and raised whether the appellant had been denied constitutional rights because the High Court allegedly did not allow submissions on the admissibility of her investigation statement; the court traced how the statement had first been marked for identification when objection was taken, how the defence later withdrew that objection while objecting to the enclosures for non-compliance with section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and how the statement and enclosures were admitted with time given to study them, holding that there had been no denial of rights. A third matter, in the High Court and appearing for the respondent, concerned outstanding legal fees and whether counsel had a right to intervene as a bona fide third party in a forfeiture application. A distinctive feature of forfeiture without prosecution is that the State need not secure a conviction to keep the property, so the contest shifts to the civil standard of proving the predicate offence and to whether the courts should defer to the findings made below. Across the appearances the practice is concentrated on proceeds-of-crime forfeiture and serious criminal prosecutions, where the standard of proof for a predicate offence, the admissibility of statements, and the rights of third parties to intervene in forfeiture are the recurring questions.