The forfeiture of property is justified under s 56(2) of the AMLATEPUA when it is proven to be proceeds of unlawful activity, without the need for a prior conviction.

[1] In the High Court at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, the Public Prosecutor by Notice of Motion dated 7 January 2015 applied for an order of forfeiture in respect of two properties which Bank Negara enforcement officers had seized but in respect of which there was no prosecution nor conviction for a money laundering offence under s 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 ("AMLATFA") or a terrorism financing offence. The application was opposed by the appellant.

[2] The AMLATFA is the predecessor to the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATEPUA"). By operation of s 35(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 , references in the AMLATEPUA to the AMLATFA are to be construed as references to the AMLATEPUA.

[3] The Notice of Motion was supported by the affidavit of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and the affidavits of Bank Negara Investigation officers and was in the following terms:

"Bahawa Pendakwa Raya di bawah kuasa-kuasa yang diberi oleh subseksyen 56(1) Akta Penggubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 (Akta 613) dibaca bersama s 376 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) telah berpuas hati bahawa harta-harta alih yang disita oleh Pegawai Penyiasat Bank Negara Malaysia pada 10 January 2014 sebagaimana tersebut di atas adalah hasil suatu kesalahan di bawah subseksyen 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001."

[4] The seized properties were:

(i) Money amounting to RM2,111,256.20 and any additional amount thereof in current account No 14290008397053 in the CIMB Bank Berhad, Seri Petaling Branch belonging to the appellant;

(ii) Money amounting to RM815,934.49 and any additional amount thereof in current account No 560193057354 (a company account under the name of Worldwide Far East Bhd) in Malayan Banking Berhad Lintas Square Kota Kinabalu Branch belonging to the appellant and one Yong Thain Vun. Both were signatories to the account.

[5] The application was made under s 56(1) of the AMLATEPUA, which provides as follows:

"56.(1) Subject to s 61, where in respect of any property seized under this Act there is no prosecution or conviction for an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence, the Public Prosecutor may, before the expiration of twelve months from the date of seizure, or where there is a freezing order, twelve months from the date of the freezing, apply to a judge of a High Court for an order of forfeiture of that property if he is satisfied that such property is:

(a) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of such offence;

(b) terrorist property;

(c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or

(d) the instrumentalities of an offence."

[6] Section 61 is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal, nor was it raised as an issue by the appellant. Therefore we shall not touch on it. As stated in the Notice of Motion, the Public Prosecutor's application was grounded on the fact that the monies in the two bank accounts were the proceeds of money laundering, an offence under s 4(1)(a) of the AMLATFA. Section 4(1) of the AMLATFA reads:

"4. Offence of money laundering

(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 to both."

[7] "Money laundering" is defined by s 3(1) to mean an act of a person who:

"(a) engages, directly or indirectly, in a transact