Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2210
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
YSC MACHINERY TRADING & ORS – Respondent
[Case No: BA-44-178-06/2022]
The court established that forfeiture of property under the Anti-Money Laundering Act requires proof on a balance of probabilities that the property is derived from unlawful activities.
Headnote:(A) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 201 (Act 613) - Sections 56(1), 56(2), 61(2), and 61(4) - Forfeiture of property - The court addressed whether seized properties constituted proceeds of unlawful activities, ruling that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3, 4, 30, 31)
(B) Third-party claims - The court emphasized that third parties must satisfy all conditions under s 61(4)(a)-(e) to reclaim forfeited property, reading these requirements conjunctively. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The case involved forfeiture proceedings against cash held in various bank accounts, which were alleged to be proceeds from unlawful activities related to a fraudulent bauxite mining project. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the properties were indeed proceeds of unlawful activities, and the respondents failed to meet the statutory requirements for reclaiming them. (Paras 9, 30)
Issues: The main issues included whether the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities and the fulfillment of statutory criteria by third-party claimants. (Paras 4, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Public Prosecutor must establish a prima facie case for forfeiture based on the civil standard of proof, shifting the burden to the claimant to prove otherwise. (Paras 30-31)
Result: The application for forfeiture was granted, and the properties were ordered to be forfeited. (Para 9)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The court clarified that forfeiture of property under the Anti-Money Laundering Act requires proof on a balance of probabilities that the property is derived from unlawful activities (!) (!) .
-
The standard of proof for establishing that property is proceeds of unlawful activities is civil, meaning it is sufficient to show that it is more probable than not that the property originated from illegal activities (!) (!) (!) .
-
The relevant provisions state that the Public Prosecutor may apply for forfeiture if there is no prosecution or conviction, provided that the court is satisfied that the property relates to an offence, terrorist activity, proceeds of unlawful activity, or instrumentalities of an offence (!) (!) .
-
The court's primary concern in forfeiture proceedings is the legal status of the property, not the guilt or innocence of any individual involved (!) .
-
The court must determine whether the property constitutes "the proceeds of an unlawful activity," which includes activities related to serious offences such as migrant smuggling, regardless of whether any person has been convicted of the underlying offence (!) (!) .
-
Once the prosecution produces prima facie evidence that the property is derived from unlawful activities, the burden shifts to the claimant or third party to prove their innocence or legitimate interest, fulfilling the elements outlined in s 61(4) of the Act (!) (!) (!) .
-
To succeed in a third-party claim, the claimant must satisfy all elements conjunctively, including having a legitimate legal interest, lack of participation or collusion, lack of knowledge or involvement in illegal use, no transfer for avoiding forfeiture, and reasonable steps to prevent illegal activity (!) (!) .
-
The law emphasizes that third parties who are bona fide and meet all statutory criteria are entitled to have the property returned, whereas those involved in or colluding with unlawful activities are unlikely to succeed in such claims (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the standard of proof required for forfeiture is less stringent than beyond a reasonable doubt; it is based on the balance of probabilities, which means that the evidence must make it more probable than not that the property is connected to unlawful activities (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court also noted that activities leading to the commission of serious offences, even if not resulting in a formal conviction, can suffice to establish the unlawful origin of the property for forfeiture purposes (!) (!) .
-
In the context of third-party claims, all elements must be proved conjunctively, and failure to meet any one of these elements can result in the forfeiture order proceeding against the claimant (!) .
-
The overall approach underscores that the focus of the court is on the nature and source of the property, and not on the guilt of individuals, provided that the statutory conditions for forfeiture are satisfied (!) (!) .
These points summarize the legal principles and procedural requirements as outlined in the document regarding the forfeiture process under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, emphasizing the evidentiary standards, third-party rights, and the court's focus on the status and source of the property.
JUDGMENT
[1] By virtue of s 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 201 (Act 613) a notice was issued to third parties to appear in the proceedings under s 56(1) of the Act against the respondents. The properties that were the subject matter of the forfeiture proceedings were as follows:
1. Cash totaling RM329,420.78 and any accretion to it in the current account of YSC Machinery Trading at the AmBank (M) Berhad, Kelana Jaya (Parkview) Branch, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, account number 8881014248685.
2. Cash totaling RM113,118,27 and any accretion to it in the current account of Chaye Muk Leng at the Maybank Islamic Berhad, Kota Bharu Main Branch, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, account number 553010627176.
3. Cash totaling RM25,013.18 and any accretion to it in the savings account of Ooi Ean Zhen at the Malayan Banking Berhad, SS2 (Jalan 2/63) Branch, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, account number 112232125039.
4. Cash totaling RM20,563.55 and any accretion to it in the savings account of Chin Mei Ching at the Malayan Banking Berhad, Damansara Utama Branch, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, account number 114197149274.
5. Cash totaling RM65,312.34 and any accretion to it in the current account of Chin Mei Ching at the Maybank Islamic Berhad, Jalan Raja Laut Branch, Kuala Lumpur, account number 564155550977.
6. Cash totaling RM207,236.87 and any accretion to it in the savings account of Chin Mei Ching at the Public Bank Berhad, Mont' Kiara Branch, Kuala Lumpur, account number 5012614202.
[2] The first respondent's owner filed her affidavit in enclosure 22. She is the wife of Heng Yan Han the second third party. Heng filed his affidavit in encl 23. The second respondent filed his affidavit in enclosures 26, 27 and 28. The fourth respondent filed her affidavit in enclosure 24. She is the wife of the first third party Looi Kam Yong. Looi filed his affidavit in encl 25. The third respondent didn't file any affidavit nor was he represented by counsel.
Tarmizi bin Awang, Penolong Pengarah Siasatan Jenayah Korporat/Persatuan/Syarikat, Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Polis Diraja Malaysia, Bukit Aman untuk mengambil alih kertas siasatan bersabit THSL report: 13975/21.
9. Berikutan dengan laporan polis di perenggan 5 di atas, saya telah dilantik sebagai pegawai penyiasat bagi laporan polis bersabit THSL report: 14047/21 tersebut dan telah diarahkan untuk menjalankan siasatan di bawah subseksyen 4(1) Akta 613 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Pegawai Penyiasat AMLA")
10. Saya sesungguhnya menyatakan bahawa dalam menjalankan siasatan bagi kes ini, saya telah merakam percakapan Pegawai Predikat Pertama di bawah subseksyen 32(2) Akta 613 dan mengesahkan perkara-perkara berikut:
10.1 Mangsa mengesahkan bahawa beliau telah diperkenalkan kepada individu yang bernama Looi Kam Yong (Nombor kad pengenalan: 751011-08-6039) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Looi") melalui Tan Suet Mooi (Nombor kad pengenalan: 550116-10-5370) mengenai projek perlombongan bauksit di sekitar Johor iaitu di Felda Keledang, Perkampungan (Felda) Adela Tunggal Sening dan Keledang, Felda Tunggal dan Felda Adela di Johor (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Projek Perlombongan Berkenaan");
10.2 Looi telah menjelaskan kepada Mangsa dan Yaw Foo Hoe (Nombor Kad Pengenalan: 800303-08-5263)(selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Abang Mangsa") bahawa Projek Perlombongan Berkenaan telah mendapat perkenan daripada DYMM Sultan Ibrahim Johor (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Sultan Johor") seperti perjanjian bertarikh 30 June 2020 yang telah ditandatangani oleh Sultan Johor, Syarikat The One Minerals Miining Sdn Bhd (Nombor Syarikat: 1196871- P)(selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Syarikat TOMM" dan Looi;
10.3 Mangsa menjelaskan individu-individu yang turut terlibat bersama Looi dalam Projek Perlombongan Berkenaan adaiah Chin Mei Ching (Nombor Kad Pengenalan: 790618-14-55578)(selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Responden Keempat"), Chaye Muk Leng (Nombor Kad Pengenalan: 720113-06-5317)(
