KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH

KAVINDRA A/L SUPPIAH

On the balance of probabilities the court found the Honda CRZ was an instrumentality of a serious drug offence and the RM90,000 constituted proceeds of unlawful activity; the forfeiture application was timely because the 12‑month period runs from the date of the seizure order (5.8.2021) not the initial seizure; the third party failed to prove innocent owner status under Section 61(4); accordingly the requirements of Section 56 were met and forfeiture to the Government was ordered.

Citation
WA-44-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: Kavindra A/L Suppiah; Respondent/pemohon: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Case Number
WA-44-128-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Forfeiture Application Under AMLATFPUAA (akta 613) / Decision on Appeal (mahkamah Rayuan)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; forfeiture order affirmed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Under Section 56 AMLATFPUAA, Proceeds of Unlawful Activity, Instrumentalities of Crime, Third‑party Innocent Owner (section 61), Limitation/12‑month Period for Forfeiture Application
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Anti‑money Laundering Drug Offences Procedural Law Forfeiture Under Section 56 AMLATFPUAA Proceeds of Unlawful Activity Instrumentalities of Crime +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kavindra A/L Suppiah

Perayu

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/pemohon

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal; Forfeiture Application Under AMLATFPUAA (akta 613) / Decision on Appeal (mahkamah Rayuan)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized property (RM90,000 and Honda CRZ) are proceeds of unlawful activity or instrumentalities under Section 56 AMLATFPUAA
  2. 2 Whether the forfeiture application was made within the 12‑month period and when that period runs (seizure vs. seizure order)
  3. 3 Whether the third party proved innocent owner status under Section 61(4) AMLATFPUAA

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found the Honda CRZ was an instrumentality of a serious drug offence and the RM90,000 constituted proceeds of unlawful activity; the forfeiture application was timely because the 12‑month period runs from the date of the seizure order (5.8.2021) not the initial seizure; the third party failed to prove innocent owner status under Section 61(4); accordingly the requirements of Section 56 were met and forfeiture to the Government was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; forfeiture order affirmed

Orders

  • Forfeiture of the Honda CRZ Hybrid (registration PKC 2244) to the Government of Malaysia under Section 56(2) AMLATFPUAA (Akta 613)
  • Forfeiture of RM90,000.00 to the Government of Malaysia under Section 56(2) AMLATFPUAA (Akta 613)