The expiration of freezing and seizure orders under the AMLATEPUA mandates the release of property if no charges are made within stipulated time frames.

[1] In the court below the appellant by Originating Summons prayed for the following orders against the respondents:

(a) the release of all monies together with all accrued interest in his CIMB Bank Account No. 25164 ("the appellant's account") held/ frozen and seized by the respondents;

(b) costs and other reliefs.

[2] At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned High court Judge dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that he failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, hence the present appeal before us. Having heard arguments by both sides, we reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. We have now reached a unanimous decision and this is our judgment.

[3] First, the salient facts. Pursuant to a freezing order issued by the police under s 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 ("the AMLATFA"), the appellant's account was frozen with effect from 24 June 2014. Paragraph 3 of the freezing order expressly states that the order was valid for 90 days, which means it would cease to have effect on 21 September 2014 if the appellant was not charged with an offence under the AMLATFA or a terrorism financing offence, as the case may be. The 90-day period is prescribed by s 44(5) of the AMLATFA.

[4]The AMLATFA is now known as the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("the AMLATEPUA") vide s 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti- Terrorism Financing (Amendment) Act 2014 [Act A1467] with effect from 1 September 2014 (see PU(B)400/2014). Section 52A of the AMLATEPUA reads as follows:

"Expiry of seizure order

52A. A seizure order made under this Act shall cease to have effect after the expiration of twelve months from the date of the seizure order, or where there is a prior freezing order, twelve months from the date of the freezing order, if the person against whom the order was made has not been charged with an offence under this Act."

[5] This new provision is not found in the AMLATFA. On 11 September 2014, that is ten days after the coming into force of the AMLATEPUA, and before the freezing order issued under s 44(1) of the AMLATFA expired on 21 September 2014, a seizure order was issued by the Public Prosecutor on the appellant's account pursuant to s 50(1) of the AMLATEPUA.

[6] The basis for the seizure order was that the monies in the appellant's account are the subject matter of an offence under s 4(1) of the AMLATEPUA allegedly committed by his mother, one Tan Hoo Eng, following Sg Bernam Police Report No: 2950/14.

[7] Tan Hoo Eng has since been charged with 21 counts of money laundering under s 4(1)(a) of the AMLATEPUA. We were told that the criminal proceeding against Tan Hoo Eng is pending before the Sessions court at Ipoh, Perak.

[8] There is no ambiguity in s 52A of the AMLATEPUA. What it means is that a seizure order issued under s 50(1) ceases to have effect in the following two situations:

(a) if the person from whom the property was seized has not been charged with an offence under the AMLATEPUA on expiration of the seizure order, which is 12 months from the date of the seizure order; or

(b) if the person from whom the property was seized has not been charged with an offence under the AMLATEPUA after the expiration of a prior freezing order, if any, which is 12 months after the issuance of the freezing order.

[9] In the present case, there was a prior freezing order issued on the appellant's account before it was seized on 11 September 2014. Therefore, the seizure order ceased to ha