SEIZED ITEMS - CREATING AWARENESS IN THE MIND OF THE LAW ENFORCER

More often than not, whenever we pay a visit to Enforcement offices, we could easily see seized items piled up or kept abandon in the open space of the so called warehouse. These items were seized during enforcement raids for all kind and type of offences under any written laws for the time being in force. Those items are vehicles, motor cycles, computers, slot machines, furniture, and so on. Some of these items are valuables with undisputed ownerships. No doubt that there are many items are without lawful ownerships.

Some give excuses that their IGSO or SOP prohibits them from disposing off those seized items on ground of pending investigation and a court case. Is it really so? Let us now check what does the law say about this practice especially in the light of latest amendment to Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 (CPC). I must say with certainty that even before the amendment of CPC, enforcement bodies were allowed to dispose off items seized even in the middle of investigations. On the seized items where the ownerships is doubted or no ownerships claim at all, the law provide sufficient avenue to resolve this situation. More details about the solution please email to: train_enforcement@yahoo.com.my

Just imagine how much burden on the enforcement agencies could be ease by disposing off those seized items much much earlier than waiting the case to end.

In cases involving seizure of vehicle under Hire Purchase agreement, the Hirer would face the hardships when they still have to service the monthly repayment notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is safe kept in the enforcement office for reasons being part of the seized items or item involved in the commission of a crime.

More often, the hirer will not service the monthly repayment anymore as he believed that the vehicle is the subject of investigation and nothing could be done about it. For the Hiree ( the bank), it is the monthly installment that count. If the Hirer defaulted in three consecutive months, notice of repossession will normally be issued. Since they are not getting back the vehicle though they know where the vehicle are, then the bank would normally opted to an option of issuing a summon to the hirer  for the recovery of the balance sum due and owed under the Hire Purchase agreement. In most cases, the bank isn’t bother to get back the vehicle from the enforcement agencies probably on ground of misconception of facts and laws. There are possible legal option to resolve this situation so that parties will be in a win win situation. We have the fairest law in place to cater justice for all. More details please email to: train_enforcement@yahoo.com.my.