ROSALIND TAN KHENG SUAN v 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Nor Raihan Binti Rithwan, Unit Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram Dan Pelucuthakan Harta Jenayah, Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara 3. ) Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram (AMLA), Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Bukit Aman 4. ) Pegawai Penyiasat Insp Mohd Rozimi bin Mustapha, Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram (AMLA), Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Bukit Aman 5. ) Pegaw...

Case Significance

Confirms that decisions to release seized property under section 60(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 are amenable to judicial review, and illustrates the court quashing such notices by certiorari where they are shown to be flawed.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns judicial review of decisions taken under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. The appellant's moneys, held in several fixed deposit and savings accounts with a bank, had been seized in the course of a money-laundering investigation. The investigating officer, with the consent of a Deputy Public Prosecutor, later issued Notices of Release of Property (money) dated 3 September 2021, directed to the bank in respect of those accounts. The appellant applied for an order of certiorari to quash those Notices of Release and the instructions given pursuant to them, arguing that the decisions of the investigating officer and the Deputy Public Prosecutor in issuing them were amenable to review and ought to be set aside. The High Court had refused relief, and the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal examined the exercise of the power under section 60(1) of the Act and the circumstances in which the release of seized property may be challenged. The dispute turned on whether the investigating officer and the Deputy Public Prosecutor had properly directed themselves in issuing the notices under the statutory regime governing the seizure, freezing and forfeiture of suspected proceeds of unlawful activity, and on whether releasing the seized moneys in the manner they had chosen was open to challenge by the account holder. Allowing the appeal, the court quashed the Notices of Release of Property in respect of the appellant's accounts — identifying each notice and the sums involved — and ordered costs of RM20,000 to the appellant, here and below. The judgment is significant for confirming that decisions to release seized property under the anti-money-laundering regime are subject to judicial review, and for illustrating the court's willingness to intervene by certiorari where such decisions are shown to be flawed. It underscores that the statutory powers of seizure and release under the Act are exercised subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.