Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ:

[1] The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Public Prosecutor (PP) can forfeit the property seized pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti- Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA).

[2] The properties and monies were seized throughout the period between 25 November 2009 until 25 October 2010 on the basis that the properties and monies were procured from proceeds of unlawful activity under s 4 AMLATFA. The legal battle in respect of the subject matter of this appeal began in 2010 when the PP filed the notice of motion on 23 November 2010, two days before the expiry of the time period prescribed, to move the High Court to forfeit the properties and monies of the respondents pursuant to s 56(1) of the AMLATFA on the basis that the properties and monies were procured illegally as a result of or in connection with an offence under s 4(1) of the AMLATFA. The prosecution contended that the seized properties and monies were procured in connection with the commission of series of offences under ss 409 and 420 of the Penal Code (PC) (the predicate offences) by the accused, namely, Datin Paduka Phang Oi Choo (OC Phang), who was at that time the Ma