PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD & 8 LG

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD & 8 LG

The prosecution failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that the seized properties were obtained as a result of or in connection with offences under s4(1) AMLATFA because affidavits lacked necessary documentary linkage, did not identify predicate offences or the proceeds clearly, and failed to show how respondents participated in money laundering; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and lower courts' orders releasing the properties are affirmed.

Citation
05(L)-159-07/2018 (W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Transshipment Megahub Berhad; Respondent: Coastal Skyline Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Wijaya Baru Aviation Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Wijaya Baru Constructions Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing; Respondent: Law Ka Hieng; Respondent: Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor
Court
L
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Case Number
05(L)-159-07/2018 (W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Anti‑money Laundering, Anti‑terrorism Financing Act 2001 / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal affirmed; High Court order releasing properties to respondents affirmed.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Under AMLATFA S56, Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Predicate Offences (s409 and S420 Penal Code), Bona Fide Third Party Rights (s61 Amlatfa), Admissibility and Sufficiency of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Anti‑money Laundering Criminal Law Forfeiture Appellate Procedure Civil Evidence Forfeiture Under AMLATFA S56 Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities) Predicate Offences (s409 and S420 Penal Code) +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant

Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Transshipment Megahub Berhad

Respondent

Coastal Skyline Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Wijaya Baru Aviation Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Wijaya Baru Constructions Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing

Respondent

Law Ka Hieng

Respondent

Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under Anti‑money Laundering, Anti‑terrorism Financing Act 2001 / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether properties seized may be forfeited under s56 AMLATFA where there is no prosecution/conviction for s4(1) offences
  2. 2 What standard of proof applies to s56 applications and what the prosecution must prove
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved existence of predicate offences and link between proceeds and respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that the seized properties were obtained as a result of or in connection with offences under s4(1) AMLATFA because affidavits lacked necessary documentary linkage, did not identify predicate offences or the proceeds clearly, and failed to show how respondents participated in money laundering; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and lower courts' orders releasing the properties are affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal affirmed; High Court order releasing properties to respondents affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Court of Appeal decision affirmed
  • Properties released to the respective respondents as previously ordered by the High Court