Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) WINTER BLOOM SDN BHD 2. ) SF BEST BERKAT ENTERPRISE 3. ) PEMBINAAN ABADI MULIA SDN BHD 4. ) MF LIM FURNITURE ENTERPRISE 5. ) GEORGE ANAK LIAM 6. ) CRYSTAL MOBILE ENTERPRISE 7. ) LIBERTY SHINING ENTERPRICE 8. ) DEV MARKETING 9. ) URUSAN CEKAP SDN BHD 10. ) MHD GOLDEN TRADING 11. ) FLASH CONNECT TRADING 12. ) TIMESUB CONNECT SOLUTION 13. ) UNITED WESTERN ENGINEERING SDN BHD 14. ) XELPMOC TRADING SDN BHD 15. ) ONE STOP TECH SDN BHD 16. ) 8STAR MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 17. ) ZETRIX...

Case Significance

Illustrates the statutory forfeiture regime under section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, under which seized property may be forfeited without a prosecution unless a party establishes a genuine and legitimate interest in it.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application by the Deputy Public Prosecutor for the forfeiture of moneys that had been seized from a large number of respondents, comprising companies and individuals. The application was brought under section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also invoked section 61(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which provides a mechanism for the forfeiture of property where there has been no prosecution of any person. Forfeiture of this kind is not dependent on a conviction; instead, on an application supported by the requisite grounds, the court may order that seized property representing or connected with unlawful activity be forfeited to the State, subject to the opportunity of interested parties to be heard and to establish a legitimate claim. The court considered the objections raised by certain respondents and the application of a third party asserting an interest in the moneys. In respect of one respondent, the matter was resolved by a recorded consent judgment under which the seized sum was apportioned — a proportion forfeited to the Government and the balance returned to that respondent. As to the remaining objections, the court found the objection of one respondent and the application of the third party to be without merit and dismissed them, allowing the forfeiture to proceed in respect of the seized moneys. The court's approach reflects the policy of the anti-money-laundering legislation, which is to strip unlawful activity of its proceeds even where, for whatever reason, no person is charged, while safeguarding the position of anyone who can show that the money is genuinely and lawfully theirs. The judgment illustrates the operation of the statutory forfeiture regime under the Criminal Procedure Code and the anti-money-laundering legislation where property is seized but no prosecution is brought, and the requirement that a party resisting forfeiture establish a genuine and legitimate interest in the property.