KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Affirms a section 56 AMLATFPUAA 2001 forfeiture order, holding that its pre-conditions under section 56(2) were satisfied on the evidence even without reliance on the appellant's cautioned statements, which the High Court had properly excluded.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against the grant of a forfeiture order by the High Court under section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA 2001) in respect of property seized from the appellant. The principal question was whether the forfeiture order had been correctly granted under section 56, examining the elements and requirements of that provision as applied to the facts.

The background lay in a raid conducted by the Royal Malaysian Customs Department, in which a parcel containing four packages of dangerous drugs was found and recovered. The issues framed for the court included whether there was any "unlawful activity" in terms of a serious offence under the Second Schedule to the AMLATFPUAA 2001 justifying the forfeiture order, whether the car was proceeds from an unlawful activity or an instrumentality of an offence, and whether cautioned statements of the appellant were inadmissible, engaging sections 71 and 32 of the Act.

Having examined the appeal record and the submissions, the court unanimously dismissed the appeal as without merit. It noted that the High Court had not even taken into account the two cautioned statements recorded from the appellant when considering the forfeiture application, because the issue of the voluntariness of those statements had not been established and taking them into account would prejudice the appellant, and yet the High Court had still concluded, correctly in the Court of Appeal's view, that the pre-conditions of section 56(2) had been fulfilled to justify the forfeiture order on the basis of all the other evidence. The court accordingly held that the appellant's complaint on this ground was also devoid of merit. The judgment illustrates the requirements of a section 56 forfeiture order under the AMLATFPUAA 2001 and confirms that such an order may stand on the strength of the remaining evidence even where cautioned statements are left out of account.