Payment of legal fees from proceeds of unlawful activity is prohibited under relevant statutes, reinforcing the integrity of anti-money laundering measures.

[1] This appeal concerns a claim by a law firm for its legal fees to be paid from money that has been seized under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("the Act").

[2] Having given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties, both written and oral, we dismissed the appeal by a majority decision. My learned sister Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and I were in favour of dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal whilst my learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan was in favour of allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. These then are the majority grounds of decision.

[3] The facts are simple and straightforward. On 9 June 2016, a police investigation was carried out against one Amar Asyraf bin Zolkepli ("Amar") for offences under ss 124 and 130 of the Penal Code and s 5 of the Computer Crimes Act 1997 . The investigation revealed that Amar possessed a computer software which enabled access to the MYIMM system of the Immigration Department without the need for a password or finger print.

[4] Amar then provided the software to a syndicate which used it to unlawfully approve the "Pas Penggajian Pengurusan Pegawai Dagang" and "Pas Penggajian Pegawai Dagang". He would be paid RM1,000.00 for every such approval.

[5] In a follow up action, the respondent (Public Prosecutor) on behalf of the Federal Government issued a seizing order pursuant to subsections 50(1) and 51(1) of the Act against the following properties belonging to Amar:

(i)RM192,147.79 in savings account number 106062056732 at Malayan Banking, Genting Highlands Branch, Pahang;

(ii) RM259,681.45 in savings account number 4835919335 at Public Bank Berhad, Taman Maluri Cheras, Kuala Lumpur;

(iii) RM102,089.20 in a fixed saving account number 1804354928 at Public Bank Berhad, Petaling Jaya, Selangor;

(iv) An apartment at Batu Caves, Selangor;

(v) A car Audi S Line TFSI CVT(A) with registration number JRC 80.

[6] Subsequently, and having satisfied himself that the properties were proceeds of an unlawful activity, the respondent applied to the High Court for forfeiture of the properties under s 56(1)(c) of the Act, 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 the seizure, or where there is a freezing order, twelve months from the date of the freezing, apply to a Judge of the High Court for an order of forfeiture of that property if he is satisfied that such property is:

(c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity";

[7] On its part the appellant, in purported exercise of its rights as a bona fide third party under s 61(4) of the Act, claimed a sum of RM398,722.00 from the seized properties which the respondent intended to forfeit. The basis for the claim was that it had a legitimate legal interest in the RM398,722.00, being legal fees for the legal services that it rendered to Amar from the day he was detained by the police up to the time of the forfeiture proceedings under s 56(1). Section 61 of the Act is reproduced below:

" Section 61 . third parties

(1) The provisions of this Part shall apply without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

(2) The Court making the order of forfeiture under s 55 or the Judge to whom an application is made under subsection 56(1) shall cause to be published a notice in the Gazette calling upon any third party who claims to have any interest in the