In forfeiture proceedings under AMLA, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, and proof of a predicate offence beyond reasonable doubt is not required.

Introduction

[1] This appeal deals with a forfeiture of property by the Public Prosecutor ("PP") where there is no prosecution or conviction for an offence of money laundering or a terrorism financing offence — a proceeding provided for under s 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLA 2001"). It was the basis of the PP's application for forfeiture that the seized properties were "the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of an offence of money laundering under s 4(1)(a) of AMLA [s 56(1)(a) of AMLA]. Except for some monies that were ordered to be returned to the 17th respondent, the High Court granted the forfeiture of all other listed properties (with some variation/exception in respect of the monies seized from the 18th and 19th respondents, which were subject to an earlier settlement). This decision was affirmed and upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.

[2] Before us, out of twenty-four appellants, only four proceeded with the appeal. They are JJ Power Groups Enterprise, PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd, Lee Choong Sen ("LCS"), and Alvin Chong Yew Kuan (collectively as "the Appellants"). The appeals by the rest of the appellants were thereby struck out.

[3] At the start of the proceeding, we were informed that the Appellants intended to pursue five out of six petitions of appeal, which they had categorised into two major issues. The first issue relates to the question of law on the standard of proof required to prove a predicate offence in a forfeiture proceeding under s 56 of the AMLA 2001. The second issue concerns the findings of fact by the courts below on the offence of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code vis-a-vis the nature of the investment which had been undertaken by the Appellants as being an unlicensed, hence illegal deposit taking.

[4] Having read the cause papers, including the judgments of the courts below, and both parties' written submissions, and having heard oral submissions by all learned counsel, we unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings and decisions of the courts below.

Background Facts And The Antecedent Proceedings

[5] Police investigation was triggered following a police report lodged by one Tan Kai Lin regarding his investment in the JJ Poor to Rich scheme ("JJPTR"), a scheme that promised the investors with certain percentage of monthly rate of returns based on the deposits or investment made. Subsequently, about 19 other individuals had also filed similar reports disclosing the same modus operandi of JJPTR.

[6] The investigation revealed that the investors were deceived into believing that the JJPTR was a licensed business of trading in foreign currencies, whereby, the investors were promised a monthly 20% rate of returns, despite there being no license obtained from the Central Bank of Malaysia for the kind of deposit taking or investment business undertaken. The investigation proceeded on the offence of cheating under the Penal Code and money laundering under the AMLA 2001.

[7] In this case, there were various bank accounts of the 33 respondents which were found to have been used to accept deposits for the investment and to accept remittances of returns of investment in the JJPTR. Certain bank accounts had also been used to purchase a property in Perak,