A forfeiture application under AMLATFA requires clear evidence linking property to predicate criminal conduct, which must be established beyond the threshold of 'balance of probabilities'.

[1] At the High Court, the appellant/Public Prosecutor ("PP") through a Notice of Motion dated 23 November 2010 moved the High Court to forfeit money and property belonging to the 1st till the 9th respondents: the 1st respondent is Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB); the 2nd respondent is Transshipment Megahub Berhad (TMB); the 3rd respondent is Coastal Skyline Sdn Bhd (CSSB); the 4th respondent is Wijaya Baru Aviation Sdn Bhd (WBASB); the 5th respondent is Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd (WBSB); the 6th respondent is Wijaya Baru Construction Sdn Bhd (WBCSB); the 7th respondent is Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing (Dato' Seri Tiong); the 8th respondent is Law Ka Hieng (Law); and the 9th respondent is Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) respectively.

[2] The Notice of Motion filed by the PP at the High Court was brought pursuant to s 56(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Act 613) ("AMLATFA") on the basis that the said movable and immovable property ("property") had been obtained as a result of or in connection with an offence under subsection 4(1) of the AMLATFA.

[3] The High Court then on 4 November 2011 dismissed the PP's motion and made an order that the property was to be released to all the respondents as the PP has failed to prove that such property had been obtained as a result of or in connection with an offence under subsection 4(1) of the AMLATFA as required under s 56(1) of the same.

[4] The PP, dissatisfied, appealed against the decision of the High Court.