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

2022 MarsdenLR 1154

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MOHD ISMAIL SYED MERAH – Appellant
Versus
PP & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: J-06B-31-07-2020 J-06B-32-07-2020 J-06B(H)-33-07- 2020 & J-06A-7-10-2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Wan Azmil Wan Majid,Nurul Atiqah Mohd Isa,Emylia Atan ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd Dasuki Mokhtar,Mohd Fairuz Johari,Hanim Mohd Rashid

The Court clarified the application of the standard of proof in money laundering cases under AMLATFA, confirming it remains beyond reasonable doubt for convictions.

Headnote:(A) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Section 4(1) – Conviction and sentence for money laundering – Appellant convicted for eight counts involving proceeds of unlawful activities – Evidence of illegal payments made to appellant by operators of illegal gambling businesses was presented – Court found that the appellant failed to raise reasonable doubt against evidence presented – Standard of proof for proving the offence remains beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 4, 15, 26, 32, 37)

(B) Standard of Proof – The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for charges under AMLATFA – The High Court correctly applied this standard. (Paras 29, 32)

Facts of the case: The appellant, a police officer, was convicted for eight offences of money laundering involving significant sums of cash linked to illegal gambling activities. Evidence included testimony from illegal gambling operators who testified payments were made to the appellant to avoid police action against their businesses. The total cash seized from the appellant's residence amounted to RM1,270,366 and Rupiah 8,178,000. (Paras 5-10)

Findings of Court: The conviction was upheld as the evidence showed the appellant actively used proceeds from unlawful activity and failed to prove the origins of the funds seized from his house. (Paras 45-60)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt; whether the appellant's defence was credible; issues of standard of proof under AMLATFA. (Paras 14, 26, 66)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the High Court did not err in its interpretation of the standard of proof, concluding the appellant's actions constituted money laundering by utilizing funds derived from illegal activities. (Paras 29-32)

Result: Appeals upheld, decisions of the High Court affirmed.

JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan JCA:

[1] There are four appeals before us in the present case which are as follows:

(i) Appeal No: J-06A-7-2020 is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the High Court in granting the stay of the forfeiture of the appellant's seized property to the Government of Malaysia;

(ii) Appeal No: J-06B-31-07-2020 is an appeal by Mohd Ismail bin Syed Merah against the order of the High Court in granting the forfeiture order of the appellant's seized property to the Government of Malaysia;

(iii) Appeal No: J-06B-32-07-2020 is the appeal by Mohd Ismail bin Syed Merah against the conviction and sentence by the High Court; and

(iv) Appeal No: J-06B(H)-33-07-2020 is the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the sentence.

[2] The main appeal here is the appeal by Mohd Ismail bin Syed ("the appellant") against the conviction and sentence by the High Court for eight offences of money laundering under s 4(1)(a), of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("the AMLATFA"). Seven charges proffered against the appellant were for using the proceeds of unlawful activities whilst one charge was for offence of possession of monies from the proceeds of unlawful activity.

[3] The charges against the appellant are as follows:

First charge (Pertuduhan Pertama)

"Bahawa kamu pada 4 September 2014 di MAA Takaful Berhad di No 58 dan 60, Susur 1, Jalan Tun Razak, di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah melibatkan diri dalam penggubahan wang haram iaitu menggunakan wang hasil daripada aktiviti haram sebanyak RM10,143.37 melalui pembelian pelan perlindungan insurans Takafulife 100 nombor sijil 141567199 yang didaftarkan atas nama kamu yang diuruskan oleh Faizah binti Abd Hamid iaitu agen MAA Takaful Berhad dan oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 4(1 )(a) Akta Pencegahan Penggubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 [Akta 613] dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama."

Second charge (Pertuduhan Kedua)

"Bahawa kamu pada 4 September 2014 di MAA Takaful Berhad di No 58 dan 60, Susur 1, Jalan Tun Razak, di dalam-daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah melibatkan diri dalam penggubahan wang haram iaitu menggunakan wang hasil daripada aktiviti haram sebanyak RM40,000.00 di dalam pelaburan Pelan Takafulink Single Invest bernombor sijil Z141567364 yang didaftarkan atas nama kamu yang diuruskan oleh Faizah binti Abd Hamid iaitu agen MAA Takaful Berhad dan oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Penggubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 [Akta 613] dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama."

Third charge (Pertuduhan Ketiga)

"Bahawa kamu pada 16 Disember 2014 di MAA Takaful Berhad di No 58 dan 60, Susur 1, Jalan Tun Razak, di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, telah melibatkan diri dalam penggubahan wang haram iaitu menggunakan wang hasil daripada aktiviti haram sebanyak RM6,283.09 melalui pembelian pelan perlindungan lnsurans Takafulife 200 nombor sijil 2141759033 yang didaftarkan atas nama anak kandung kamu iaitu Nur Aqilah binti Mohd Ismail yang diuruskan oleh Faizah binti Abd Hamid iaitu agen MAA Takaful Berhad dan oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Penggubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil Daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 [Akta 613] dan boleh dihukum di bawah Akta yang sama."

Fourth charge (Pertuduhan Keempat)

"Bahawa kamu pada 16 Disember 2014 di MAA Takaful Berhad di No 58 dan 60, Susur 1, Jalan Tun Razak, di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johar Darul Takzim, telah melibatkan diri dalam penggubahan wang haram iaitu menggunakan wang hasil daripada aktiviti haram sebanyak RM993,716.91 di dalam pelan Takafulife 100 No Sijil 2141567199 yang didaftarkan atas nama kamu yang diurus

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top