Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2021

1. ) BADAN PERHUBUNGAN UMNO NEGERI KEDAH 2. ) Jamil Khir Bin Baharom 3. ) Othman Bin Aziz 4. ) Hashim Bin Jahaya 5. ) Abdul Azeez Bin Abdul Rahim

Citation

W-05-591-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-591-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held the prosecution failed to prove on the civil standard that the seized monies were traceably proceeds of the predicate offence (s23 MACC Act) or subject matter of money‑laundering under s4(1) AMLATFPUAA; where monies deposited by DSN had been spent or commingled with legitimate receipts, there was no identifiable property to forfeit under s56; bona fide recipients who received payments for value and had no reason to suspect illegality are protected under s61; s59 pecuniary penalties are not available absent successful forfeiture under s56/s55.
27 Jan 2021

PENDAKWARAYA SUDESH RATNARAJAH & 78 LAGI

Citation

W-05-234-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-05-234-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that forfeiture proceedings under s56 are civil and may accommodate representative actions; section 61(4)(a)-(e) are to be read conjunctively; the High Court misdirected itself by effectively treating the paragraphs disjunctively and failing to determine whether requirements in s61(4)(c),(d),(e) were met; the matter is remitted to the High Court to determine those elements and, depending on that determination, to order return of RM1,112,700.00 or forfeiture to the government.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) BADAN PERHUBUNGAN UMNO NEGERI KEDAH 2. ) Jamil Khir Bin Baharom 3. ) Othman Bin Aziz 4. ) Hashim Bin Jahaya 5. ) Abdul Azeez Bin Abdul Rahim

PENDAKWARAYA SUDESH RATNARAJAH & 78 LAGI