PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) TAN TIONG ANN 2. ) SAIFON KITTIKHUNSINGKHORN

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. ) TAN TIONG ANN 2. ) SAIFON KITTIKHUNSINGKHORN

The prosecution failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Savings Account funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. The respondent's explanations and s32 statement provided a probable, persuasive source (proceeds from prior lawful business and sale of fittings). Mixed statements must be assessed holistically and the exculpatory explanations here were sufficient to defeat the forfeiture claim; therefore the freezing order must be uplifted and funds released to R2.

Citation
AA-44-25-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Public Prosecutor; Respondent: Tan Tiong Ann; Respondent: Saifon Kittikhunsingkhorn
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 October 2020
Case Number
AA-44-25-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Forfeiture Application Under AMLA / Hearing on Application for Forfeiture — Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Applicant's claim to forfeit the RM19,510.57 savings account failed; freezing order uplifted and respondent (R2) entitled to deal with the funds
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Unlawful Activity, AMLA Section 56 Forfeiture, Section 32 AMLA Statements, Standard of Proof — Civil Balance of Probabilities, Public Lottery Offence (common Gaming Houses Act S4 A)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Money Laundering Forfeiture Law Evidence Law Gaming Law Proceeds of Unlawful Activity AMLA Section 56 Forfeiture Section 32 AMLA Statements +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Applicant

Tan Tiong Ann

Respondent

Saifon Kittikhunsingkhorn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Forfeiture Application Under AMLA / Hearing on Application for Forfeiture — Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the funds in the Savings Account are proceeds of an unlawful activity
  2. 2 Whether mixed statements recorded under s32 AMLA (incriminating and exculpatory) must be considered in toto
  3. 3 What standard of proof applies to an application under s56 AMLA

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Savings Account funds were proceeds of unlawful activity. The respondent's explanations and s32 statement provided a probable, persuasive source (proceeds from prior lawful business and sale of fittings). Mixed statements must be assessed holistically and the exculpatory explanations here were sufficient to defeat the forfeiture claim; therefore the freezing order must be uplifted and funds released to R2.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim to forfeit the RM19,510.57 savings account failed; freezing order uplifted and respondent (R2) entitled to deal with the funds

Orders

  • Freezing order over Savings Account (Maybank account no. 15809790xxxx) to be uplifted immediately
  • Respondent Saifon Kittikhunsingkhorn is at liberty to deal with the funds in the account