The MACC Is at Your Door: What Your Company Should Do During a Dawn Raid

A plain-English guide to the MACC’s search and seizure powers, what counts as obstruction, where the limits lie, and how to prepare your team before, during and after a raid

What Is a Dawn Raid?

In the anti-corruption context, a dawn raid is an unannounced visit by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to the premises of a company or an individual to investigate offences under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”).

The key is surprise. As the book explains, no advance notice is required and a raid may take place at any time of the day. The aim is to secure evidence before anyone in the organisation can be tipped off, conceal or destroy evidence, or prepare scripted answers to investigators’ questions.

With the introduction of corporate liability under Section 17A, companies are now potential targets of MACC investigations in their own right. Every business should therefore know what to expect and how to respond.

What Can the MACC Do? Section 31 Explained

Under Section 31 of the MACC Act, where the Public Prosecutor, or an MACC officer of the rank of Chief Senior Assistant Commissioner or above authorised by the Public Prosecutor, has reasonable cause to suspect that evidence of an MACC offence is in any place, he may issue a written order directing MACC officers to carry out a search.

Power	What it allows officers to do
Enter and seize	Enter any premises and search for, seize and take possession of any book, document, record, account, data or other article
Inspect and copy	Inspect, make copies of or take extracts from books, documents, records, accounts or data
Search people	Search any person on the premises, and detain and move that person to facilitate the search, and seize anything found on them
Open containers	Break open, examine and search any article, container or receptacle
Vehicles	Stop, search and seize any conveyance
Use force if necessary	Break open doors or windows, forcibly enter, remove obstructions, and detain anyone on the premises or in a vehicle until the search is complete

Two important points on how searches are carried out

Urgent searches without a written order: Under Section 31(3), an MACC officer may exercise all these powers without first obtaining the written order if he has reasonable cause to suspect evidence is concealed in a place and reasonable grounds to believe that the delay in getting an order would likely frustrate the search.

Same-gender searches: Under Section 31(4), a person may only be searched by someone of the same gender.

Don’t Obstruct: Section 48

Cooperation is not optional. Section 48 of the MACC Act makes it an offence for any person to:

Prohibited conduct	Everyday example during a raid
Refuse MACC officers access to premises, or refuse to be searched by an authorised officer	Keeping the office door locked or telling officers to come back later
Assault, obstruct, hinder or delay an officer in the execution of duty	Stalling officers at reception while documents are moved
Fail to comply with any lawful demand, notice, order or requirement	Ignoring a request to open a cabinet or provide a password
Omit, refuse or neglect to give information reasonably required	Refusing to say where certain records are kept
Fail to produce, conceal or attempt to conceal books, documents or articles	Hiding files, laptops or phones
Rescue or attempt to rescue anything that has been seized	Taking back documents after they have been bagged
Destroy anything to prevent its seizure	Shredding papers or deleting emails and chat messages
Interfere with, frighten, threaten or abduct anyone involved in the investigation	Pressuring staff on what to say to investigators

These offences apply to every employee, not just management. A single staff member who deletes messages or hides a file can create serious criminal exposure for himself and for the company.

Where Are the Limits?

Although the MACC’s powers are wide, they are not unlimited. The book notes that the courts tend to impose checks and balances on such far-reaching powers. Three features of the law are important:

Proper authorisation: Searches normally require a written order from the Public Prosecutor or an authorised senior officer, except in the urgent situation described above.
Reasonable cause: There must be reasonable cause to suspect that evidence of an MACC offence is in the place searched.
Good faith: Section 72 of the MACC Act protects MACC officers from legal proceedings only for acts done in good faith. According to the book, acting against an aggrieved party in bad faith will prevent the authority from claiming this immunity.

The book does not cite a case in which the MACC itself was sued over a raid, but it uses a local council case as an analogy for what can happen when enforcement officers go beyond their powers.

Case Spotlight: Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam v Only One Foot Reflexology Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 MLJ 528 (Court of Appeal)

Facts: A licensed reflexology and aromatherapy centre in Kota Kemuning was raided by Shah Alam City Council enforcement officers in April 2011, following alleged public complaints (no evidence of which was produced at trial) that female masseuses were giving body massages to male customers. The raid followed a visit by one of the council’s own officers acting as an agent provocateur. The officers seized 12 mattresses, took several foreign female workers to the council’s premises pending immigration checks, and issued two compound notices. The Immigration Department confirmed the workers’ permits were valid and they were released. The centre could not operate for at least 11 days.

What went wrong: The by-laws allowed only the Mayor, the Secretary or an officer authorised in writing by the Mayor to enter and inspect licensed premises. There was no evidence that the chief enforcement officer had such written authorisation. In any case, that by-law only allowed entry and inspection without a warrant. Search, seizure and arrest fell under a different by-law requiring a warrant from a magistrate, which had not been obtained.

Decision: The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling that the raid and seizure were unlawful and an abuse of power. It described the conduct as “departmental aggression” against which ordinary citizens must be protected, and stressed that enforcement action must be proportionate to the power actually conferred. The council could not rely on the immunity clauses in its by-laws, because those only protected a valid exercise of power by an authorised officer. The centre was entitled to a declaration and an assessment of damages for loss of income and harm to its reputation.

Why it matters for MACC raids: The case shows that enforcement bodies must act within the exact limits of their statutory powers and follow the required authorisation procedures. The book draws the parallel: if the MACC fails to comply with the procedures during a raid, it may be liable to the aggrieved party.

Being Called In for Questioning: Section 30

Raids are often followed by interviews. Under Section 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act, an investigating officer may order any person to attend and be examined orally on any matter that may assist the investigation. According to the Federal Court judgment discussed below, the person must comply, must disclose all information within his knowledge and answer truthfully, and cannot refuse to answer on the ground that it may incriminate him or his spouse. Failing to comply with such a notice is an offence punishable with a fine of up to RM10,000 or up to two years’ jail, or both.

Case Spotlight: Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor (Federal Court, 2017)

Facts: In 2012, a company adviser made a police report alleging that the chairman of the company had pressured him to bribe the police to close an investigation. The MACC called the adviser in to give a statement as a witness. He came with two lawyers who insisted on being present, claiming a constitutional right to counsel. The MACC objected, but eventually allowed them in, warning them in advance that their own statements might also need to be recorded. After the interview, the MACC served Section 30(1)(a) notices requiring the two lawyers to attend and be examined. They refused and applied to court to quash the notices.

High Court and Court of Appeal: Both courts ruled in the lawyers’ favour. According to the book, the Court of Appeal held that “person” in Section 30 referred to a witness or suspect, and since the lawyers were neither, there was no basis to examine them. It stressed that the MACC’s discretion is not unfettered. The Federal Court judgment records that the Court of Appeal had also found the notices to be an act of intimidation not issued in good faith.

Federal Court: The Federal Court reversed these decisions. It held that actions or decisions of a public authority in the course of a criminal investigation are generally not open to judicial review, as otherwise the investigations of every enforcement agency would face constant court challenges. It also held that the complainant, as a witness who was not arrested, had no constitutional right to have counsel present while his statement was recorded. There was no bad faith, because there was no surprise or ambush: the lawyers had been told in advance that their statements might be taken if they insisted on attending.

Related point: The Federal Court referred to its earlier decision in Empayar Changgih Sdn Bhd, where machines seized in an Optical Discs Act raid could not be challenged by judicial review. The Federal Court noted that the company in that case could have filed a writ action for damages instead.

Lesson: In practice, it is very difficult to stop an MACC investigative step through the courts. The realistic options are to cooperate, keep careful records, and seek legal advice on whether a claim for damages may be available if the MACC acted outside its powers or in bad faith.

Preparing for a Raid: A Three-Stage Dawn Raid Policy

The book recommends that companies adopt a dawn raid policy setting out the authorities’ powers, the do’s and don’ts, and the duty to cooperate, while making sure the company’s legal rights are not compromised. It proposes a three-step approach:

Stage 1: Before a raid

Step	What it involves in practice
Appoint liaison officers	Name the people who will be the main point of contact with the authorities, with backups
Set up a response team	Assign specific roles, such as receiving officers, shadowing each search team, handling IT and keeping records
Understand the authorities’ powers	Brief the team on Sections 30, 31 and 48 of the MACC Act
Understand the duty to cooperate	Make clear that obstruction is a criminal offence
Identify the do’s and don’ts	Prepare a simple one-page guide for reception and all staff
Train employees	Train staff in-house or with external professionals, and consider practice exercises

Stage 2: During a raid

Step	What it involves in practice
Verify the officers’ mandate	Politely ask to see identification and the written order under Section 31, and note who authorised it
Confirm the purpose of the visit	Ask what offence or matter is being investigated
Understand the scope	Clarify which premises, people, documents and data the search covers
Keep records of the entire process	Note the officers’ names, times, areas searched, questions asked and items seized, and request a copy of the list of seized items

Stage 3: After a raid

Step	What it involves in practice
Check seals	Make sure any seals placed on property, rooms, files, equipment or documents stay intact and are not broken
Debrief	Review the process and the records made, while memories are fresh
Manage the officers’ departure	Take control of the process as the authorities leave the premises
Consider legal advice	Decide whether to seek advice from external counsel
Manage publicity	Decide whether communications with staff, clients, the market or the media are needed, and take appropriate action

Quick Guide for Staff: Do’s and Don’ts

The following guide draws on the MACC’s powers, the obstruction offences in Section 48 and the book’s three-step approach:

Do	Don’t
Stay calm and courteous, and call the designated liaison officer immediately	Refuse entry or ask officers to wait outside while you “tidy up”
Ask to see identification and the written order, and note the details	Argue with officers or physically block them
Cooperate with lawful requests for documents, devices and information	Hide, move, delete or shred any documents, emails or messages
Keep a written record of what is searched, seized and asked	Remove or tamper with anything that has been seized or sealed
Answer truthfully if questioned	Guess, speculate or give misleading answers
Follow the company’s dawn raid policy and instructions from the response team	Warn colleagues, business partners or anyone else involved in the matter
Consider whether legal advice is needed	Pressure or coach other employees on what to say

Note on legal representation

In Latheefa Beebi Koya, the Federal Court held that a person called in as a witness, who has not been arrested, has no constitutional right to have a lawyer present while giving a statement. Companies should not assume that their lawyers will be allowed to sit in on staff interviews, although the MACC may permit it. Seeking legal advice before and after interviews remains important.

Company Readiness Checklist

Do we have a written dawn raid policy covering before, during and after a raid?
Have we named a liaison officer and a response team, with backups for weekends and after hours?
Do reception and security staff know exactly what to do and whom to call?
Have staff been trained on the MACC’s powers and the Section 48 obstruction offences?
Do we have a template for recording officers’ details, areas searched and items seized?
Do we know which external lawyers to call, and do we have their contact details on hand?
Do we have a plan for communications with staff, clients and, if necessary, the media?
Is dawn raid preparedness part of our wider risk management and adequate procedures under Section 17A?

Conclusion

A dawn raid is stressful and disruptive, but how a company responds can make a significant difference. The MACC has wide powers to enter, search, seize and question, and any obstruction is itself a criminal offence. At the same time, those powers must be exercised with proper authorisation, reasonable cause and good faith, and a company that keeps careful records is better placed to protect its rights if something goes wrong.

As the book emphasises, managing dawn raids is a key element of risk management. Any organisation, whether a multinational or an SME, may be raided at any time. Preparing staff in advance, assigning clear responsibilities and adopting a practical dawn raid policy will help a company respond calmly, cooperate fully and protect itself effectively.

Settling Instead of Being Charged: How Compounding Works for Money Laundering Offences

Picture this. A letter arrives from an enforcement agency stating that you are reasonably suspected of committing an offence under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA). The letter then offers a way out. Pay a stated sum within a fixed number of days,…