Sim Sai Hoon

Sim Sai Hoon

Although procedural requirements (freezing order within 12 months and s61(2) notice publication) and predicate gratification offence were established on the balance of probabilities, the applicant failed to prove that the seized sum RM41,261.64 (and accruals) in respondent's account constituted the subject-matter or evidence of a money laundering offence because the principal proceeds (RM1,200,000) had been spent and were no longer in the account at time of seizure; therefore forfeiture could not be ordered.

Citation
WA-44-126-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Sim Sai Hoon
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 January 2020
Case Number
WA-44-126-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Forfeiture Application Under AMLATFPUAA (act 613) / High Court Judgment (disposition)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Money Laundering, Gratification Offence, Predicate Offence, Freezing Order, Third Party Notice
Source Language
Malay/English
Anti Money Laundering Anti Corruption Criminal Law Forfeiture Law Banking Law Forfeiture Money Laundering Gratification Offence +3 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Applicant

Sim Sai Hoon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Forfeiture Application Under AMLATFPUAA (act 613) / High Court Judgment (disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether application complied with AMLATFPUAA ss56 and 61(2) procedural requirements
  2. 2 Whether predicate offence (using office/position for gratification under MACC Act s23) was established on balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the seized funds constituted proceeds/subject-matter/evidence of money laundering under AMLATFPUAA s4(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Although procedural requirements (freezing order within 12 months and s61(2) notice publication) and predicate gratification offence were established on the balance of probabilities, the applicant failed to prove that the seized sum RM41,261.64 (and accruals) in respondent's account constituted the subject-matter or evidence of a money laundering offence because the principal proceeds (RM1,200,000) had been spent and were no longer in the account at time of seizure; therefore forfeiture could not be ordered.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's forfeiture application dismissed
  • All monies in RHB Bank Berhad Account No. 21427700032720 to be returned to the respondent