1. ) JJ Power Groups Enterprise 2. ) JJ Global Network Holdings Berhad 3. ) JJ Global Network 4. ) Utopia Entertainment Sdn Bhd 5. ) PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd 6. ) L&L Property Ventures Sdn Bhd 7. ) JJ Global Recipe Sdn Bhd 8. ) Penang Old Wo

1. ) JJ Power Groups Enterprise 2. ) JJ Global Network Holdings Berhad 3. ) JJ Global Network 4. ) Utopia Entertainment Sdn Bhd 5. ) PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd 6. ) L&L Property Ventures Sdn Bhd 7. ) JJ Global Recipe Sdn Bhd 8. ) Penang Old Wo

In forfeiture proceedings under section 56 AMLA 2001 where no prosecution or conviction for money laundering or terrorism financing exists, all questions of fact including whether property constitutes proceeds of an unlawful activity (predicate/serious offence) are to be determined on the balance of probabilities pursuant to sections 56(4) and 70(1); section 70(2) does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of predicate offences in such forfeiture proceedings. The High Court's factual findings that the JJPTR scheme involved deceit, constituted unlicensed/illegal deposit taking and that the seized properties were proceeds of unlawful activity were adequately supported and not plainly...

Citation
05(L)-153-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: JJ Power Groups Enterprise; Appellant: PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd; Appellant: Lee Choong Sen; Appellant: Alvin Chong Yew Kuan; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
L
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 January 2024
Case Number
05(L)-153-08/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Concerning Forfeiture Under the Anti‑money Laundering, Anti‑terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (amla) / Appellate Decision of the Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decisions of High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Predicate Offence Vs Unlawful Activity, Forfeiture Under Section 56 AMLA 2001, Cheating Under Section 420 Penal Code, Illegal Deposit Taking and Regulatory Scheme
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑money Laundering Law Forfeiture Law Administrative and Procedural Law Standard of Proof Predicate Offence Vs Unlawful Activity Forfeiture Under Section 56 AMLA 2001 Cheating Under Section 420 Penal Code +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JJ Power Groups Enterprise

Appellant

PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Lee Choong Sen

Appellant

Alvin Chong Yew Kuan

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Concerning Forfeiture Under the Anti‑money Laundering, Anti‑terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (amla) / Appellate Decision of the Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Forfeiture Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the applicable standard of proof for proving predicate offence/unlawful activity in a forfeiture proceeding under section 56 AMLA 2001?
  2. 2 Whether the JJPTR investment scheme constituted cheating under section 420 Penal Code and unlawful/illegal deposit taking contributing to proceeds of unlawful activity
  3. 3 Whether section 70(2) AMLA 2001 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of predicate offences in forfeiture proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

In forfeiture proceedings under section 56 AMLA 2001 where no prosecution or conviction for money laundering or terrorism financing exists, all questions of fact including whether property constitutes proceeds of an unlawful activity (predicate/serious offence) are to be determined on the balance of probabilities pursuant to sections 56(4) and 70(1); section 70(2) does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of predicate offences in such forfeiture proceedings. The High Court's factual findings that the JJPTR scheme involved deceit, constituted unlicensed/illegal deposit taking and that the seized properties were proceeds of unlawful activity were adequately supported and not plainly...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decisions of High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Forfeited properties vested in the Federal Government pursuant to sections 56(2) and 58 AMLA 2001