SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 MarsdenLR 2323

HIGH COURT IPOH PERAK
TAN HOO ENG – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Application No: AA-44-22-03/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Gurbachan Singh,Rabinder Singh,Amir Faliq Abdul Jalil,Siti Nor Syahidah Ismail ,Respondent Advocate: Aida Mastura Mohamed Aman,Dpp Noor Zahizan Lazarous

Prosecution under AMLATFA must adhere to statutory requirements for consent, which if violated, renders charges curable but does not imply mala fides.

Headnote:The Court considers several charges against the Applicant under the Penal Code and AMLATFA. The Applicant's appeal seeks to quash charges and seize orders as unconstitutional due to lack of required statutory consent. The Court finds charges were instituted without proper adherence to s 93 of AMLATFA, allowing room for curability of defects but not determining bad faith in prosecution. The Court ultimately dismisses the application stating no merit was found.

Table of Content
1. outline of procedural application and charges against the applicant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. discussion on prosecution validity and required consents. (Para 12 , 13)

[1] This is an application by the Applicant for this Court to issue the following orders-

1.1 that the proceedings before the Sessions Court for the following eighteen (18) criminal cases against the Applicant to be stayed pending the disposal of this application:

(i) AA-62K-37-10/2017;

(ii) AA-62K-38-10/2017;

(iii) AA-62K-39-10/2017;

(iv) AA-62K-40-10/2017;

(v) AA-62K-41-10/2017;

(vi) AA-62K-42-10/2017;

(vii) AA-62K-43-10/2017;

(viii) AA-62K-44-10/2017;

(ix) AA-62K-45-10/2017;

(x) AA-62K-114-12-2017;

(xi) AA-62K-115-12-2017;

(xii) AA-62K-116-12-2017;

(xiii) AA-62K-117-12-2017;

(xiv) AA-62K-118-12-2017;

(xv) AA-62K-119-12-2017;

(xvi) AA-62K-120-12-2017;

(xvii) AA-62K-121-12-2017;

(xviii) AA-62K-122-12-2017;

1.2 to set aside and/or quash and struck out all charges against the Applicant under s 409 of the Penal Code for the criminal cases with registration numbers as in subparagraphs (i)-(ii) above, and that the Applicant is acquitted and discharged from those charges;

1.3 to set aside and/or quash and struck out all charges against the Applicant under s 4(1)(a) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Act 613) ("AMLATFA") read together with s 87(1) AMLATFA for the criminal cases with registration numbers as in subparagraphs (iii)-(xviii) above, and that the Applicant is acquitted and discharged from those charges;

1.4 to revoke the Seizure Order under s 50(1) AMLATFA dated 24 July 2014.

Background

[2] The Applicant, and one Lim Keck Eng, owns 50% shareholding respectively in Syarikat Blue Star Moulding Sdn Bhd ("BSM"). Operational and Management issues pertaining to BSM are handled by the Applicant. Lim Keck Eng also owns 50% shareholding in another company, Syarikat Blue Star Sawmill Sdn Bhd ("BSS"). Both BSM and BSS are carrying out the business of wood processing since 2006 and share storage and factory facilities.

[3] On 7 April 2014 Lim Keck Eng lodged police report No Sg Senam/002428/14 against the Applicant for the latter's alleged unauthorised sale of wood products belonging to BSM/BSS to various purchasers with sale invoices issued by and payment made to Syarikat Dyera-Tim Sdn Bhd ("DT"), a company where the Applicant was also a director and shareholder. The police report stated that the transanctions that had been carried out by the Applicant for the period 2009-2013 amounted to approximately RM33 milion.

[4] Following the said police report, another police report No Sg Senam/002950/14 dated 24 April 2014 was lodged by a police officer Muhammad Noorariff Shah bin Zainudin under s 4(1) AMLATFA 2001 (Act 613).

[5] Consequent to the police report No SG Senam/002950/14, a freezing order dated 30 April 2014, with a 90-days validity period commencing the date of issuance, was issued under s 44(1) AMLATFA 2001 for "the total amount of money saved into CIMB Bank Bhd accounts" in the name of the Applicant as listed in Appendix A to that freezing order.

[6] The Applicant's CIMB accounts as listed in the said Appendix A were as follows:

(i) 55 Fixed Deposit Accounts (Nos 5002572095000(1)-(55));

(ii) 1 Savings Account NO 7031168993;

(iii) 2 Foreign Currency Accounts Nos 80000555440, 800009561931; and

(iv) 1 Current Account NO 8004997963.

[7] Consequent to the police report No SG Senam/002950/14, a second freezing order dated 15 May 2014, with a 90-days validity period commencing the date of issuance, was issued under s 44(1) AMLATFA 201 for 1 Current Account NO 8004997963.

[8] On 24 July 2014, the Deputy Public Prosecutor issued an Order under Subsection 50(1) AMLATFA 2001 ("Seizure Order") against the Applicant's CIMB accounts as listed in the Annexure to the said Seizure Order as follows:

(i) 55 Fixed Deposit Accounts (Nos 5002572095000(1)-(55));

(ii) 1 Current Account NO 8004997963; and

(iii) 1 investment account No RSP 15971.

[9] On 15 Ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top