PP vs BILLION NOVA SDN BHD & ORS - 2016 MarsdenLR 2228

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 2228

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
BILLION NOVA SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Anselm Charles Fernandis ,Respondent Advocate: Arthur Lee Chuan Ann

Table of Content
1. the appellant's motion for forfeiture is based on supposed unlawful activities connected to seized funds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requirements under amlatfa for proving forfeiture include establishing a connection between seized funds and unlawful activities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. circumstantial evidence must adequately demonstrate illegal transactions for forfeiture. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. the lack of sufficient proof on the balance of probabilities leads to dismissal of the appeal. (Para 51)

Idrus Harun JCA:

Introduction

[1] This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned judge of the High Court at Miri delivered on 29 September 2014 dismissing the notice of motion filed by the Public Prosecutor (the appellant) on 18 September 2013. The notice of motion sought an order of the learned judge that monies in 24 accounts belonging to the respondents in various banks in Labuan and Miri, seized under s 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613) ("the AMLATFA") be forfeited pursuant to s 56(1) thereof.

Summary Of Facts

[2] Before we go more closely into the material facts, we would start off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 2228

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPP – AppellantVersusBILLION NOVA SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
BILLION NOVA SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent