NO STATUTE PROVISION
(1) FINANCIAL Section 134 Permitted disclosures
SERVICES
ACT 2013, (1) A financial institution or any of its directors or officers may
Section 134
(1)(1) (a)for such purpose or in such circumstances as set out in the first column of Schedule 11, disclose any document or
Schedule 11 information relating to the affairs or account of its customer to such persons specified in the second column of that Schedule;
or
(b)disclose any document or information relating to the affairs or account of its customer to any person where such disclosure
is approved in writing by the Bank.
Purposes for or circumstances in which customer documents or Persons to whom documents or information
information may be disclosed may be disclosed
5. Compliance by a licensed bank or licensed investment bank All persons to whom the disclosure is
which has been served a garnishee order or a hiwalah order required to be made under the garnishee
attaching moneys in the account of a customer. order a hiwalah order.
6. Compliance with a court order made by a court not lower than a All persons to whom the disclosure is
Sessions Court, a Syariah Subordinate Court, a Syariah High Court or required to be made under the court order.
a Syariah Appeal Court.
(2) EMPLOYEES 51 Contributions and deposits not to be assigned or attached
PROVIDENT (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other written law
FUND ACT (a) no sum deducted from the wages of a member of the Fund under section 48;
1991, Section (b) no amount payable by the employer as his contribution; and
51 (c) no amount standing to the credit of a member of the Fund,
shall be assignable, transferable, liable to be attached, sequestered, levied upon, for, or in respect of, any debt or
claim whatsoever, nor shall the Official Assignee be entitled to or have any claim on any such sum or amount .
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the amount standing to the credit of a member of the Fund under paragraph (1)(c) may
be forfeited if the amount standing to the credit of such member is subject to an order of forfeiture by a court under the
Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 [Act 613].
(3) Similar Section 13 TABUNG ANGKATAN TENTERA ACT 1973 Act 101
worded Section 35 BANK SIMPANAN NASIONAL ACT 1974 ACT 146
restriction of Section 13 JUDGES' REMUNERATION ACT 1971 Act 45
S.51 EPF Act Section 33 POLICE ACT 1967 Act 344
can be found Chapter 90, 156 WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' PENSIONS ORDINANCE
in many other Chapter 88 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORDINANCE
Acts
But it is absent from Tabung Haji Act.
(4) How about The closest authority we have is case where garnishee proceedings is made against fixed deposit (FD) accounts:
Amanah
Saham which MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP SDN BHD V RHB BANK BHD [2016] 2 MLJ 457 (FEDERAL COURT)
are unit
trusts? [52] To entitle a garnishor to enter judgment against a garnishee the garnishor must at the outset establish that the
money sought to be attached belongs to the JD. In Badeley v Consolidated Bank (1888) 38 Ch D 238, it was held that ‘ a
creditor can only attach by a garnishee order such property of his debtor as the debtor could deal with properly and without
violation of the rights of other persons’.
[53] In Plunkett and another v Barclays Bank, Ltd [1936] 2 KB 107 judgment could not be entered to attach the money as
it was actually trust money ie not of the JD. And if the debt due has been assigned, the alleged assignee must be given an
opportunity to be heard (Curran v Newpark Cinemas Ltd and Others [1951] 1 All ER 295).
[54] Back home in Malaysia, in Tay Way Boon & Ors v Omar Marican Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ 122; [1990] 2
CLJ 700; [1990] 3 CLJ (Rep) 202, it was likewise held that a garnishee could not attach a debt that had been equitably
assigned. Similarly, a judgment creditor was not entitled to garnish monies which the JD had parted with his interest,
prior to the date of the garnishment notice (see Yeo Chiang Swee v United Decorators; and in the matter of an issue
ordered to be tried Shun Fah & Co and the said Yeo Chiang Swee trading as Seng Hua Sawmill Co [1933] 2 MLJ 85 and Holt
v Heatherfield Trust Ltd and G & T Bridgewater Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 404).
Judgment in favour of Respondent.
