[ ] Mohd Ismail Bin Syed Merah

[ ] Mohd Ismail Bin Syed Merah

On the totality of credible evidence (payments by illegal operators, position and opportunity of the accused, discovery of large cash sums and investment transactions), the Court of Appeal held the prosecution proved the elements of money laundering beyond reasonable doubt; the High Court did not err in its application of the standards under AMLATFA; charges were not defective; s114(g) did not assist the defence; convictions affirmed; however the High Court erred in failing to impose the mandatory statutory fines under s4(1) and inappropriately ordered all sentences to run concurrently, so the Court substituted a structured set of imprisonment terms and mandatory fines reflecting...

Citation
J-06B(H)-33-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/respondent (in Cross‑appeals): Mohd Ismail bin Syed Merah; Respondent/appellant (in Cross‑appeals): Public Prosecutor
Court
H
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Case Number
J-06B(H)-33-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals at the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals resolved: PP appeal against stay of forfeiture allowed; appellant appeals against conviction and forfeiture dismissed and convictions affirmed; PP appeal against sentence allowed; High Court sentence set aside and substituted by Court of Appeal sentence and fines; forfeiture to Government affirmed.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Standard of Proof, Section 4 AMLATFA, Section 4(2) Inference, Forfeiture, Mandatory Fine, One Transaction Rule, Adverse Inference S114 Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑money Laundering Law Evidence Sentencing Forfeiture/confiscation Money Laundering Standard of Proof Section 4 AMLATFA +5 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 8 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Ismail bin Syed Merah

Appellant/respondent (in Cross‑appeals)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent/appellant (in Cross‑appeals)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals at the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court erred in applying standard of proof for offences under AMLATFA
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved money laundering beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether inferences under s4(2) AMLATFA properly arise from facts

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of credible evidence (payments by illegal operators, position and opportunity of the accused, discovery of large cash sums and investment transactions), the Court of Appeal held the prosecution proved the elements of money laundering beyond reasonable doubt; the High Court did not err in its application of the standards under AMLATFA; charges were not defective; s114(g) did not assist the defence; convictions affirmed; however the High Court erred in failing to impose the mandatory statutory fines under s4(1) and inappropriately ordered all sentences to run concurrently, so the Court substituted a structured set of imprisonment terms and mandatory fines reflecting...

Court Disposition

Appeals resolved: PP appeal against stay of forfeiture allowed; appellant appeals against conviction and forfeiture dismissed and convictions affirmed; PP appeal against sentence allowed; High Court sentence set aside and substituted by Court of Appeal sentence and fines; forfeiture to Government affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal J-06A-7-2020 (PP) allowed; stay of forfeiture set aside
  • Appeal J-06B-31-07/2020 (Ismail) dismissed; High Court forfeiture order affirmed; seized movable property forfeited to Government of Malaysia