“Money Laundering and AMLATFA 2001”

The Mechanics of Anti-Money Laundering

and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001
 WHAT IS
MONEY LAUNDERING?

Money Laundering is a process to

disguise illegal proceeds from their
criminal origin so as to avoid suspicion of
law enforcement and to prevent leaving a
trail of incriminating evidence
It is a process to make dirty money to
appear “clean”
 3 STAGES IN
MONEY LAUNDERING
 PLACEMENT
- the placement of money into the financial
system
 LAYERING
- creating complex layers of financial transactions
designed to disguise illegal proceeds from their
source
 INTEGRATION
- turning of illegal proceeds into ‘legitimate’
economy - to make them appear as ordinary and
legitimate earnings
Placement Stage
Cash paid into bank
(sometimes with staff
complicity or mixed with
proceeds of legitimate
business)
Cash use to buy money
order/bank draft/ traveler's
cheque
Cash exported/Using Money
Changer/ Hawalah
Cash used to buy high value
goods, property or business
assets.
Cash used to buy businesses
Layering Stage
Wire transfers abroad (often
using shell companies or funds
disguised as proceeds of
legitimate business).
Cash deposited in overseas
banking system.
Complex web of transfers
(both domestic and
international) makes tracing
original source of funds
virtually impossible.
Resale of goods/assets.
Integration Stage
False loan repayments or
payments of goods/materials -
forged invoices used as cover
for laundered money.
Transfer back as loans or
investment.
Income from property or
legitimate business assets
appears “clean”.
 Scope of Money Laundering
Problem
 The International Monetary Fund has
estimated that between 2% and 5% of global
GDP per year is generated annually as the
proceeds of crime (amount in the trillions of
dollars USD).
 Money laundering presents not only a problem
for criminal justice systems but also has the
capacity to destabilise financial institutions
and the financial system.
 Money Laundering : International
Action
 In response to mounting concern over money
laundering, the Financial Action Task Force on
Money Laundering (FATF) was established by G 7
Summit held in Paris in 1989
 In April 1990, FATF issued a set of 40
Recommendations which provide a comprehensive
plan of action needed to fight against money
laundering
 In October 2001, FATF issued 8 Special
Recommendations to deal with the area of terrorist
financing and in October 2004 added the 9th Special
Recommendation. (Known as the 40+9
Recommendations)
The 40+9 Recommendations : 3 major areas
1. Legal System – to make money laundering and
terrorism financing an offence & to confiscate/
forfeit proceeds of crime and terrorist property
2. Financial and Regulatory Framework – to prevent
and detect money laundering i.e requirement of
customer identification and due diligence, report
keeping, reporting of suspicious transactions and
establishment of Financial Intelligent Unit
3. Law enforcement – power to investigate, to
freeze/restraint, to seized and international
cooperation i.e mutual legal assistance and
extradition
 Asia Pacific Group on Money
Laundering (APG)
 APG is an autonomous and collaborative
international organisation founded in 1997 in
Bangkok
 APG is FATF associate member
 Malaysia is not a member of FATF but a member of
APG
 One of the APG’s key roles is to assess compliance
by APG member jurisdiction with the global
AML/CFT standards (the 40+9 Recommendations)
 Every member jurisdiction will be assessed through a
Mutual Evaluation in every 5 years and the
assessment report will be prepared, tabled and
published.
 In line with international obligations, Malaysia enacted the
Anti Money Laundering Act 2001 (AMLA)
 With effect from March 2007, AMLA was amended and
accordingly renamed as the Anti Money Laundering and Anti
Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA)
 AMLATFA is the latest legislation in Malaysia for recovery of
proceeds of crime – new approach in combating crime.
 AMLATFA fortifies the earlier legislation
 Dangerous Drugs (forfeiture of property) Act 1988

 Anti-Corruption Act 1997

MONEY LAUNDERING UNDER
THE AMLATFA 2001
 Objectives of AMLATFA 2001
 to criminalized money laundering - the creation of the
offence of money laundering i.e. criminalized any act
of “dealing” with proceeds of crime;
 to provide measures to be taken for the prevention
and detection of money laundering & terrorism
financing and
 to provide mechanism for the seizure and forfeiture of
proceeds of crime and terrorist property.
 Offence of Money Laundering
s.4(1) Any person who-
(a) engages in, or attempts to engage in; or
(b) abets the commission of,
money laundering, commits an offence and shall
on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five
million ringgit or to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years or both.
s.4(2) A person may be convicted of an
offence under subsection (1) irrespective of
whether there is a conviction in respect of a
serious offence or foreign serious offence or
that a prosecution has been initiated for the
commission of a serious offence or foreign
serious offence.
 s.3 - Interpretation
“money laundering” means the act of a
person who-
(a)engages, directly or indirectly, in a
transaction that involves proceeds of an
unlawful activity;
(b) acquires, receives, possesses, disguises,
transfers, converts, exchanges, carries,
disposes, uses, removes from or brings into
Malaysia proceeds of an unlawful activity;
or
 (c)conceals, disguises or impedes the
establishment of the true nature, origin,
location, movement, disposition, title of,
rights, with respect to, or ownership of,
proceeds of an unlawful activity;
where-
(aa) as may be inferred from objective factual
circumstance, the person knows or has
reason to believe, that the property is
proceeds from any unlawful activity; or
(bb) in respect of the conduct of a natural
person, the person without reasonable excuse
fails to take reasonable steps to ascertain
whether or not the property is proceeds from
any unlawful activity;
“proceeds of an unlawful activity” means any
property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by
any person as a result of any unlawful activity;

“unlawful activity” means any activity which is

related, directly or indirectly, to any serious offence
or any foreign serious offence
“property” means movable or immovable
property of every description, whether situated
in or outside Malaysia and whether tangible or
intangible and includes an interest in any such
movable or immovable property;
 “serious offence” means-
(a) any of the offences specified in the Second
Schedule;
(b) an attempt to commit any of those
offences; or
(c) the abetment of any those offences;

(there are 248 offences from 36 Acts)

 Serious Offences
(248 offences from 36 Acts)

proceeds

(a) (b) (c)

(money laundering offences)

 The Offence of Money Laundering
 It is a stand alone offence
 A conviction for money laundering offence
can be had irrespective of a conviction for
predicate offence or foreign serious offence or
that a prosecution has been initiated for the
commission of a predicate offence or foreign
serious offence
 However proof of commission of the predicate
offence or foreign serious offence is material
i.e in proving the property is the proceeds of
crime
 Standard of proof ( whether the property is
subject matter or has been used in the
commission of an offence under s 4(1) –
balance of probability – required in civil
proceeding ( s 55(3))
 Proof of Conviction (Predicate Offence)– s 76
Prevention & Detection of Money Laundering
Activities
Prevention –
 s.13 – record-keeping by reporting
institutions
 s.16 – identification of account holder

 s.17 – retention of records

 s.18 – opening account in false name

 s.19 – compliance programme
Detection
 s.14 – report by reporting institutions
 Suspicious transactions
 Automatic reporting
 s.23 – currency reporting at border
 s.14 – Report by reporting institutions
A reporting institution shall promptly report to the
competent authority any transaction-
(a) exceeding the amount specified by the competent
authority under subsection 13(1); and
(b) Where the identity of the persons involved, the
transaction itself or any other circumstances
concerning that transaction gives any officer or
employee of the reporting institution reason to
suspect that the transaction involves proceeds of
an unlawful activity.
 s.23 – Currency reporting at border
(1) A person leaving or entering Malaysia
with an amount in cash, negotiable bearer
instruments or both, exceeding such value as
the competent authority may prescribe by
order published in the Gazette, shall declare
to the competent authority may specify.
 Investigation & Prosecution
(i) Power of investigation
 Part V – s.29 – s.43
 s.48 & s.49
 s.67 & s.68
(ii) Freezing order
 s.44
(iii) Seizing order
 s.45 & s.46 – moveable property
 s.50 – moveable property in financial institution
 s.51 – immoveable property
 s.52 - business
(iv) Forfeiture Order
 Criminal forfeiture – s.55, s.59 & s.61
 Forfeiture Where No Prosecution (Civil Forfeiture –
s.56 & s.61
 Investigation
Initiation of Investigation
(i) Suspicious Transaction Report (STR)
– s.14 & s. 8(2)(c)
(ii) Report –
(a) enforcement agency
(b) any person
Note : Enforcement Agency – body or
agency responsible for the enforcement of
the predicate/serious offence
 Purpose of Investigation
 Gathering of evidence
1. For the purpose of prosecution of money laundering
2. For the purpose of forfeiture of property which is
subject matter of or have been used in the
commission of money laundering or terrorism
financing offence either under section 55 (criminal
forfeiture) or section 56 (civil forfeiture)
3. For the purpose of getting a penalty order under s
55 (2) and pecuniary order s 59
Power & Scope of Investigation
 Recording Statement (s 32 & 72) and production
of document, record, report etc
 Asset tracing (s 32 & s 67)

 Financial Investigation (s48) i.e net worth analysis

and forensic accounting
 Asset Declaration (s49)

 Note : S 68 – evidence gathered through predicate

investigation – shall be deemed to be evidence
gathered under AMLATFA
 Power to freeze any property (s 44)
Power to freeze any property by LEAs for the purpose of
investigation before effecting a seizure – s 44 : the most
powerful provisions of AMLATFA
 Power to seize property
Power to seize any property which is the subject matter of the
offence or evidence to the commission of such offence – s 45,
50, 51 & 52
 Moveable property (s 45 & s 46)
 Moveable property in financial institution (s50)
 Immoveable property (s 51)
 Business (s 52)
 s.44 – Freezing of property
(1) Subject to section 50, where an enforcement
agency, having the power to enforce the law
under which a serious offence is committed,
has reasonable grounds to suspect that an
offence under subsection 4(1) has been is
being or is about to be committed by any
person, it may issue an order freezing any
property of that person, wherever the
property may be, or in his possession, under
his control or due from any source to him.
(5) An order made under subsection (1) shall
cease to have effect after ninety days from
the date of the order, if the person against
whom the order was made has not been
charged with an offence under this Act.
 NOT TO DISPOSE
PROPERTY OR
SUCH PART OF EXCEPT WITH
PROPERTY s44(2) (a) TERMS AND
s.44 CONDITIONS
S44(2)(a)
NOT TO DEAL WITH
PROPERTY
S44(2)(a) DURATION OF
ORDER (UP TO 90
DAY) s44(5)

DISPOSAL OF
AUTHORISE OFFICER
PROPERTY FOR
FREEZING ORDER TAKING CONTROL
ENFORCEMENT SPECIFIC
ON AND CUSTODY OF PROP
PURPOSE s44(3)(b)
AGENCY
PROPERTY S44(2)(b)
MANNER OF
ADMINISTRATION
ENFORCEMENT OF PROP s44(3)(c)
AGENCY
TO GIVE DIRECTION
S44(3) RESTRAINT
PERSON FROM
DEALING WITH
PROP s44(4)
DIRECTION TO
PERSON RESTRAINT FROM
S44(4) REMOVE OR SEND
OUT OF M’SIA
S44(4)(b)
 s.45 – Seizure of movable property
(1) In the course of an investigation into an
offence under subsection 4(1), an
investigating officer may, upon obtaining
approval from an investigating officer senior
in rank to him, seize any movable property
which he has reasonable grounds to
suspect to be the subject-matter of such
offence or evidence relating to such
offence.
 IO

SEEK APPROVAL TO SEIZE ANY MOVABLE

PROPERTY FROM IO SENIOR IN RANK

DECISION OF
SENIOR IO
NOT APPROVED APPROVED

IO EFFECTING SEIZURE PREPARES

& SIGNS LIST OF ALL MOVABLE
PROPERTY AND PLACES TO BE FOUND
s45 S45(2)

MANNER OF EFFECTING SEIZURE

S46(1)

IF NOTDESIRABLE TO REMOVE
IF PROPERTY CAN BE REMOVED
LEAVE AT PREMISE AND PLACE
PLACE UNDER CUSTODY &
UNDER CUSTODY & PLACE
PLACE AS IO MAY DETERMINE
AS IO MAY DETERMINE
S.50 – Seizure of movable property in
financial institution
(1) Where the Public Prosecutor is satisfied
on information given to him by an
investigating officer that any movable
property, including any monetary instrument
or any accretion to it, which is the subject-
matter of an offence under subsection 4(1)
or evidence in relation to the commission of
such offence,
is in the possession, custody or control of a
financial institution, he may, notwithstanding
any other law or rule of law, after consultation
with Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities
Commission or the Labuan Offshore Financial
Services Authority, as the case may be, by
order direct the financial institution not to part
with, deal in, or otherwise dispose of such
property or any part of it until the order is
revoked or varied.
 CONSULT RELEVANT
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUPERVISORY
s50(1) AUTHORITY OF FIs
(BNM, SC, LOFSA)

AFTER
ORDER TO FIs:- CONSULTATION,
• NOT TO PART WITH; PP MAY ISSUE
• DEAL IN; OR ORDER UNDER s50(1)
• DISPOSE
SUCH PROPERTY OR
ANY PART UNTIL
ORDER IS REVOKED
OR VARIED

IF FIs FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH ORDER

s50(1)
COMMITS AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE
UNDER s50(3)
 Case Law
City Growth Sdn Bhd & Anor v. The Government of
Malaysia (2006) 1 MLJ 581
“The order of the deputy public prosecutor is not reviewable under
O 53 of the RHC. Section 50(1) of AMLA is part and parcel of the
investigation process into an offence under s 4(1) of AMLA. In
order to facilitate the investigation into the offence of money
laundering, the law has provided with the Public Prosecutor the
power to assist the investigating officer…Thus by issuing the said
orders, the DPP was merely exercising a function under AMLA…
Otherwise if all decisions and action of public authority of this
nature are amendable to court’s review, then the government
machinery may not be able to function smoothly. The investigation
process of all law enforcement agencies will be opened to
constant judicial review.”
 s.51- Seizure of immovable property
(1) Where the Public Prosecutor is satisfied
on information given to him by an
investigating officer that any immovable
property, is the subject-matter of an offence
under subsection 4(1) or evidence of the
commission of such offence, such property
may be seized, and the seizure shall be
effected.
(a) by this issue of a Notice of Seizure by the
Public Prosecutor setting out the particulars
of the immovable property which is seized in
so far as such particulars are within his
knowledge, and prohibiting all dealings in
such immovable property;
(b) by publishing a copy of such Notice in two
newspapers circulating in Malaysia, one of
which shall be in the national language and
the other in the English language; and
(c)by serving a copy of such Notice on the
Land Administrator or the Registrar of
Titles, as the case may be .... of the area in
which the immovable property is situated.
 IO GIVES DPP INFORMATION ON PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED

DPP’S DISCRETION

s.51
MANNER OF SEIZURE

NOTICE OF SEIZURE SERVES NOTICE ON

DPP ISSUE NOTICE
IN 2 NEWSPAPER LAND ADMINISTRATOR /
OF SEIZURE
BM & ENGLISH REGISTRAR
MALAYA/SABAH/SARAWAK

TO ENDORSE TERMS OF
NOTICE ON TITLE
S51(2)
PROHIBTS ALL DEALINGS IN
RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
S51(3)
 s.52 – Special provisions relating to seizure
of a business
(1) Where an enforcement agency has reason to
believe that any business-
(a)is being carried on by or on behalf of any
person against whom prosecution for an
offence under subsection 4(1) is intended to
be commenced;
(b) is being carried on by or on behalf of a
relative an associate of such person;
(c)is a business in which such person, or a
relative or associate of his, has an interest
which amounts to or carries a right to not less
than thirty per centum of the entire business;
or
(d) is a business over which such person or his
relative or associate has management or
effective control, either individually or
together, the enforcement agency may seize
the business in the manner provided under
this Part or by an order in writing…
the enforcement agency may seize the
business in the manner provided under this
part or by an order in writing-
(aa) direct the extent and manner in which
the
business may be carried on;
(bb) specify any person to supervise, direct or
control the business, including its
accounts, or to carry on the business or
such part of it as may be specified;
(cc) direct that all or any proportion of the
proceeds or profits of the business be paid
to Accountant-General and retained by him
pending further directions in respect of it
by
the enforcement agency;
(dd) prohibit any director, officer or employee
or
any other person from being in any
manner
involved in the business with effect from
(ee) direct that the premises where the
business was carried on to be closed
and, if necessary or expedient. Placed
under guard or custody.
 Prosecution
 s 93 – Instituted with PP’s written consent
 s 91 – Joinder of charges : may be charged
with and tried at one trial for any numbers of
offences committed within any length of time
 s 87 - Corporate liability & liability of any
person acting in official capacity
 s 92 – compoundable with the consent of PP –
not exceeding 50% of the maximum fine
 Forfeiture
 For the recovery of proceeds of crime, AMLATFA provides :
a. Power to forfeit property at the end of criminal
proceeding (s 55) or civil forfeiture proceeding (s56)
b. Even if the accused is acquitted, the court is still
empowered to forfeit the property seized provided that the
court is satisfied :
i. the accused is not the true & lawful owner of the
property
ii. No other person is entitled to the property as a
purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration
c. Where the proceeds of crime have been disposed
off or cannot be traced, the court upon conviction
shall order the accused to pay as penalty a sum
equivalent to the value of such proceeds and such
penalty shall be recoverable as a fine.

d. In respect of benefits derived by the accused from

the commission of money laundering offence, the
court may impose a pecuniary penalty order (s 59).
 Forfeiture

(1) Criminal forfeiture – s.55, s.59 &

s.61
(2) Civil forfeiture – s.56 & s.61
 s.55 – Forfeiture of property upon
prosecution for an offence
(1) Subject to section 61, in any prosecution
for an offence under subsection 4(1), the
court shall make an order for the forfeiture
of any property which is proved to be the
subject-matter of the offence or to have been
used in the commission of the offence where-
(a) the offence is proved against the accused; or
(b) the offence is not proved against the accused
but the court is satisfied-
(i) that the accused is not the true and lawful
owner of such property; and
(ii) that no other person is entitled to the
property as a purchaser in good faith for
valuable consideration.
(2) Where the offence is proved against the
accused but the property referred to in
subsection (1) has been disposed of, or
cannot be traced, the court shall order the
accused to pay as a penalty a sum which is
equivalent to, in the opinion of the court, the
value of the property, and any such penalty
shall be recoverable as a fine.
(3) In determining whether the property is
the subject – matter of an offence or has
been used in the commission of an offence
under subsection 4(1) the court shall apply
the standard of proof required in civil
proceedings.
Provision as to sentences of fine
s.283CPC
In every case of an offence in which the
offender is sentenced to pay a fine the
Court passing the sentence may, in its
discretion, do all or any of the following
things:
(1) allow time for the payment of the fine;
(2) direct payment of the payment of the fine;
(3) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by
distress and sale of any property belonging to the
offender;
(4) direct that in default of payment of the fine the
offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term….
- If the offence is punishable with imprisonment –

- exceed 2 years – ¼ of the maximum term of

 imprisonment
 s.56 – Forfeiture of property where there is no
prosecution
(1) Subject to section 61, where in respect of any
property frozen or seized under this Act there is no
prosecution or conviction for an offence under
subsection 4(1), the public prosecutor may, before
the expiration of twelve month from the date of the
freeze or seizure, apply to a judge of High Court
for an order of forfeiture of that property if he is
satisfied that such property had been obtained as a
result of or in connection with an offence under
subsection 4(1).
 s.56(3)-Any property that has been seized and in
respect of which no application is made under
subsection (1) shall, at the expiration of twelve
months from the date of its seizure, be released to
the person from whom it was seized.

s.56(4) - In determining whether or not the

property has been obtained as a result of or in
connection with an offence under subsection 4(1),
the court shall apply the standard of proof required
in civil proceedings.
(3) In determining whether the property is
the subject – matter of an offence or has
been used in the commission of an offence
under subsection 4(1) the court shall apply
the standard of proof required in civil
proceedings.
Right of Bone Fide Third Parties
s 61 Forfeiture Proceeding
The court making the order of forfeiture under
s 55 or the Judge whom an application is made
under sub section 56(1) shall cause to be
published a notice in the Gazzette calling upon
any third party who claims to have any interest
in the property to attend before the court on
the date specified in the notice to show cause
as to why the property shall not be forfeited
 The property shall be return to the claimant when the
court is satisfied that :
(a) the claimant has a legitimate interest in the
property
(b) no participation, collusion or involvement with
respect to the offence can be imputed to the claimant
(c) the claimant lacked knowledge and was not
intentionally ignorant of the illegal use of the
property or if he had knowledge, did not freely
consent to its illegal use
(d) the claimant did not acquire any right in
the property from a person proceeded against
under circumstances that give rise to a
reasonable inference that any right was
transferred for the purpose of avoiding the
eventual subsequent forfeiture of the property;
and
(e) the claimant did all that could reasonably
be expected to prevent the illegal use of the
property
 In the case of PP v Lau Kwai Thong, Judicial
Commissioner Tuan Abang Iskandar held that
the claimant has to prove on balance of
probabilities all the requirement under that s
61 (4) i.e the section should be read
conjunctively and not disjunctive.
 Report

Investigation

Freezing --------------------------------------Seizure
(90 days) (9 months)

Criminal/Civil
s.55 / s.56

Forfeiture – s.61
 Evidential/Admissibility Provision
 S 40 – evidence gathered (statement or real evidence)
under s 32 shall be admissible as evidence
notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the
contrary
 S 71 – document or evidence gathered by PP or
enforcement in exercise of his power under this Act,
such document or copy of document or other
evidence shall be admissible notwithstanding
anything contrary in any written law
 s 72 – admissibility of statements by accused
persons & the court may draw inferences from
failure to mention fact which in the
circumstances existing at the time he could
reasonably have been expected to mention
 s 73 – Admissibility of statements and
documents of persons who are dead or cannot
be traced etc
 Absconded Person
 A person shall be treated as if he had been
convicted of a serious offence if the person
absconds in connection with a serious
offence
 A person shall be treated as if he had
absconded if before or after the
commencement date
(a) An investigation for serious offence has
been commenced against the person
(b) the person
(i) dies before proceedings in respect of the
offence were instituted, or if such proceedings
were instituted, the person dies before he is
convicted of the offence
(ii) at the end of the period of six months from
the date on which the investigation was
commenced against him, cannot be found,
apprehended or extradited
(Section 63)
A forfeiture order may be made against an
absconded person if the court is satisfied
(i) on the balance of probabilities that the
person has absconded and
(ii) having regard to all the evidence before
the
court, that such evidence if unrebutted
would warrant his conviction for the offence
(Section 64)
 Forfeiture Upon
Prosecution
• From 2004 - the end of 2007, the main
focus
of the Forfeiture of Property Unit is on the
criminal proceeding.
• To date, 95 prosecutions have been
instituted
and 15 cases completed
Cases on Forfeiture
Upon Prosecution
In the case of PP v Abd Khalid bin Hamid
 Convicted on 5 charges and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for each
charge (concurrent)
 Forfeiture – House & Vehicles (Proton Perdana V6 and Mercedes Benz)

In the case of PP v Ong Seh Sen

 Convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment
 Forfeiture – RM314,724.79
 Penalty Order – RM1 million (in default 12 months imprisonment)
 Cases on Forfeiture
Upon Prosecution
In the case of PP v Tan Khay Guan
 Convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
 Forfeiture - RM39,270.09
 Penalty Order – RM19.3 million (in default 12 months imprisonment)

In the case of PP v Mohd Faizal bin Hussin

 Convicted on 99 charges and sentenced to 12 years and 3 months
imprisonment
 Forfeiture – Vehicle (Proton Perdana V6)
 Penalty Order - RM939,255.21 (in default 15 months imprisonment)
 Cases on Forfeiture
Upon Prosecution
In the case of PP v Mohd Norzli b. Mohd Sidek
Convicted and sentenced to :
(i) 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM60,000.00 (in default 12 months imprisonment)
(ii) 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM25,000.00 (in default 4 months imprisonment)
 Cases on Forfeiture Upon Prosecution
In the case of PP v Nurul Huda bt. Hj. Ahmad
Convicted and sentenced to :
(i) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM40,000.00 (in default 3 months imprisonment)
(ii) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM32,750.00 (in default 2 months imprisonment)
(iii) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM45,000.00 (in default 3 months imprisonment)
(iv) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM60,000.00 (in default 5 months imprisonment)
(v) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM41,875.00 (in default 3 months imprisonment)
(vi) 3 charges - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Penalty Order – RM25,000.00 (in default 2 months imprisonment)
 Forfeiture Where There Is
No Prosecution
Section 56
Forfeiture of property where there is no prosecution

(1) Subject to section 61, where in respect of any property frozen or seized under this
Act there is no prosecution or conviction for an offence under subsection 4(1) , the
Public Prosecutor may, before the expiration of twelve months from the date of the
freeze or seizure, apply to a judge of the High Court for an order of forfeiture of that
property if he is satisfied that such property had been obtained as a result of or in
connection with an offence under subsection 4(1) .

(2) The judge to whom an application is made under subsection (1) shall make an order
for the forfeiture of the property if he is satisfied-
(a) that the property is the subject-matter of or was used in the commission of an
offence under subsection 4(1) ; and
(b) that there is no purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration in respect of
the property.
 Forfeiture Where There Is
No Prosecution
 Starting December 2007, the Forfeiture of
Property Unit began initiating civil forfeiture
proceedings

 To date, 36 forfeiture proceedings filed and 22

concluded
 Cases on Forfeiture Where There Is No
Prosecution
 PP v Omar Yusof & Syarikat CNT Yusuf Sdn. Bhd.
Forfeiture - RM949,190.58, USD5,000
- Boat (Kingfisher) & Furnitures
(predicate offence – s.420 Penal Code)

 PP v Jamin bin Ahmad & Mohd Yusof bin Abu Bakar

Forfeiture - RM37, 053.80
(predicate offence – s.395 Penal Code)
Cases on Forfeiture Where
There Is No Prosecution
 PP v Nicholas Baptist Forfeiture -
RM1,484,426.87
(predicate offence – s.420 Penal Code)
PP v Latchimanan a/l Perumal &
Keevhen Enterprise
Forfeiture - RM171,280.00
(predicate offence – s.395 Penal Code)
Cases on Forfeiture Where
There Is No Prosecution
 PP v Kay Poh Koh & Ors.
Forfeiture – RM603,591.79
(predicate offence – s.392 Penal Code)
 PP v Chew Yew Loong & Ors.
Forfeiture – RM8,803.04
(predicate offence – s.133 Custom Act 1967)
Cases on Forfeiture Where
There Is No Prosecution
 PP v Hitech Objective Enterprise & Ors.
Forfeiture – Aprilia RS 250GP1 Motorcycle
(predicate offence – s.25(1) BAFIA Act 1989)
 PP v Lau Kwai Thong
Forfeiture - RM110,000.00
(predicate offence – s.409 Penal Code)
 Thank you

Muhammad Saifuddin bin Hashim Musaimi

Deputy Head of Forfeiture of Property &
AMLA Unit
Attorney General’s Chambers
Malaysia