Search results

Money laundering is a complex issue which has been ongoing for many years globally. Developed and developing countries form anti-money laundering regime in the view to combat these ever-challenging criminal activities. Laundering of money involves the hiding and cleaning of “dirty money” derived from unlawful activities. Malaysia has come up with its own regime of anti-money laundering. Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) provides power to forfeit proceeds at the end of proceedings. This paper aims to investigate whether the current civil forfeiture regime in Malaysia is effective in fighting against money laundering.

This paper will be based on a doctrinal research where reliance will mainly be on relevant case laws and legislations. AMLATFA is the primary legislation which will be utilised for the purpose of analysis.

Despite the enactment of AMLATFA, little study has been carried out on the effectiveness of civil forfeiture regime under Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. Furthering into forfeiture of criminal proceeds, the findings show that forfeiture provisions are the recent law enforcement strategy to fight against crimes. It is implicit that this strategy is more efficient than the conventional approach, which only focused on punishing the individual criminal but failed to diminish the criminal operations as a whole.

Strengths and weaknesses of AMLATFA are identified where it is less comprehensive in terms of offences covered and standard of proof. With that, this paper analyses the civil forfeiture regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. This paper would also offer some guiding principles for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policymakers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. Anti-money laundering laws can further be improved by being a better and established civil forfeiture regime where Malaysia will be able to discharge its duties well on forfeiting benefits from criminals.

Before the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA), the fight against financial crime can be found in several statutes such as the Penal Code, Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and Companies Act 1965. It is generally accepted that by freezing and forfeiting the proceeds of the crime, it would give significant impact on the fight against financial crime. However, under these legislations, there were few shortcomings of the procedures on how the proceeds of the crime could be seized and forfeited. As such, the enactment of the AMLATFA is considered timely to overcome these problems. This paper aims to examine how the AMLATFA could be utilized to combat financial crime in Malaysia.

This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant provisions under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws that relate to measures for freezing, seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of the crime will be identified and analyzed.

The AMLATFA provides innovative tools for the law enforcement officials to follow the money trail, which will eventually lead to those who committed the financial crime. It also provides authorities with more powerful seizure and forfeiture measures. This is seen as a new law enforcement strategy to combat financial crime. It is believed that this approach is more effective than the traditional approach, which only punished the individual criminal but failed to diminish the criminal operations. However, it is vitally important to ensure that the effectiveness of the regime must not jeopardize the innocent third parties who could lose their money or any other proprietary interest due to the invocation of the forfeiture order.

This paper analyzes the new legal regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering law that can be invoked to combat financial crimes activities. This paper would provide some guidelines into this particular area for legal enforcement authorities, academics, legal practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.

The purpose of this paper is to give a better insight to the legal society, practitioners and legislators of the working mechanisms of money laundering activities, as well as the functionalities of the Anti‐Money Laundering and Anti‐terrorism Financing Act 2003 (AMLATFA) in Malaysia, in curbing money laundering and terrorism funding activities. At the same time, the paper provides an overview on the applicability and practicability of the enforcement mechanisms in Malaysia by exploring legislations from different jurisdictions that are more developed.

The paper achieves this by having a cross‐sectional analysis onto the legislation in Malaysia such as AMLATFA and also similar legislations found in countries such as the UK. A complete insight is further gained by having interviews with experts in the judiciary, Bank Negara, as well as the experts from the Attorney General's Chamber in Malaysia regarding their insight into the subject matter. Last but not least, the authors also surveyed into the different points of view from journal articles in Malaysia and globally.

Malaysia has a legal framework for curbing money laundering but the current AMLATFA provisions are considered to have failed to be effectively enforced. A more comprehensive, specific and well elaborated legal framework will have to be laid down in order to create a better platform for the prosecutors to bring a good case against these money launderers.

This paper will give a deeper insight to the legal society of the capability of AMLATFA and the lack of it, in curbing money laundering in Malaysia and, at the same time, creating awareness among policy makers of the difficulties faced by the enforcement bureaus in prosecuting these money launderers due to the lacunas in the current law.

This paper could be useful source of information for practitioners, academics, policymakers and students and a guide for any possible future amendments to the current insufficiency.

Reporting suspicious transactions under anti‐money laundering (AML) laws creates a major dilemma for banks. On the one hand, failure to report suspicious transactions is an offence under the laws. On the other hand, if they report the transaction, they may breach their duty of confidentiality to their customer or could be liable for tipping off the suspected customer. More importantly, it can also undermine customers' trust. The purpose of this paper is to look into these issues and analyse them against the background of the Malaysian AML laws.

This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant Malaysian AML that affect the reporting obligations will be identified and analyzed. It will be necessary to examine not just the provisions of the Malaysian Anti‐Money Laundering and Anti‐Terrorism Financing Act, but also its regulations and guidelines which affect banks in detail, as this is the most important legislation for the purpose of this paper.

It is apparent that the reporting suspicious transactions regime has had a significant impact on the operations of banks in Malaysia. While the regime is based on sound principles, the effectiveness of the regime is still unknown. As such, only time will tell whether the banks will be able to cope sufficiently with the increased AML obligations. Obviously, it is critical at this stage, to establish effective coordination between legislators, regulators and the banking industry, in order to minimize problems faced by the banks and thereby to ensure effective implementation of the regime.

This paper provides an examination of the impact of the reporting suspicious transactions regime on Malaysian banks. It is hoped that the study would provide some insight into this particular area for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. In view of the international nature of money laundering and banking, there will be significant interest in how the AML laws affect banks operating in Malaysia.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the current legal position on the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

A thorough exploratory analytical analysis signifies that such illegally obtained evidence from money laundering offences is admissible, provided it does not undermine the administration of justice or the right to a fair trial.

By virtue of the lack of written or codified rules governing the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering, the rule of admissibility remains the primary foundational principle for the governance of the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

The Malaysian Criminal Justice System has historically relied on the long-standing admissibility principles to admit and exclude illegally obtained evidence. For decades, courts have used their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and they have further demonstrated to use the same discretion to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Evidence obtained illegally but if relevant to the matter in issue is deemed admissible. Evidence derived from an act associated with unlawful activities or a predicate offence in money laundering may be obtained illegally, which may influence the prosecution case and conversely, defend the accused’s rights to a fair trial.

The purpose of this paper is to examine money laundering cases investigated by the Central Bank of Malaysia under the Anti‐Money Laundering and Anti‐Terrorism Financing Act 2001.

This study analyzes the contents of public releases by the enforcement division of the Central Bank for period 2007 to 2011. Analysis of data is carried out based on three categories: the predicate offence, the perpetrators and current status of the cases.

Findings reveal that most cases investigated by the Central Bank relate to sec 4(1) of AMLATFA 2001 and the main predicate offence related to the money laundering charges are on illegal deposit taking. Further it is found that directors of companies are the leading group of people charged under the Act for money laundering. In addition, findings also show that only half of the cases investigated have been charged in court.

Data from this research only come from enforcement releases from the Central Bank of Malaysia. Since AMLATFA2001 is administered by multiple agencies, the research may not provide a comprehensive view of all the cases investigated. Future research should look at other agencies and in particular the Royal Police of Malaysia.

Findings from the study suggest that prosecuting money laundering cases by Bank Negara Malaysia are limited to cases with predicate offence of illegal deposit taking. The agency should explore other predicate offences and the concept of “irresistible inference” to increase its effort in prosecuting money laundering activities in the country.

The paper documents and analyzes the actual cases being investigated for money laundering offences. It provides basis for the standard setters to evaluate their effort to curb money laundering activities in Malaysia.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze banking secrecy laws against the background of the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. It has been argued that the anti-money laundering law makes greater inroads into the banking secrecy rule when compared to the common law or other statutes. Banks can disclose customer’s information on even grounds of suspicion of money laundering. Banking secrecy is a customer privilege, whereas combating money laundering is critical for public safety and security. Indeed, achieving a proper balance is a desirable goal. But how do we go about achieving such a balance is a question encountered by many law enforcement authorities. This paper looks into these issues.

This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant Malaysian laws that provide the banking secrecy rule will be identified and analyzed. It will be necessary to examine the banking secrecy rule in the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) and other relevant statutes in detail, as these are the most important legislation for the purpose of this paper.

On closer inspection, it is submitted that AMLATFA provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that the disclosure of customer’s information is carried out in a manner that is not prejudicial to the interest of legitimate customers. This is a positive approach that could protect the innocent customers from being mistreated by the law. Ultimately, it can be said that the growing threat of global money laundering and terrorism makes the overriding of banking secrecy justified because without a flow of information from the banks, the effective prevention of the menace is not possible.

This paper analyzes the inroads into the banking secrecy rule under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. It would provide some guidelines into this particular area for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the broad concept of forfeiture, its legal positions in the UK and Malaysia, and to highlight the implications of such forfeiture systems and legislations.

This paper uses a doctrinal legal analysis and secondary data, which analyses primary sources, the POCA (2002) and the AMLATFA 2001, and secondary sources including case law, articles in academic journals, books and online databases.

The authors contend that the civil forfeiture system and law have far-reaching implications, affecting not only law enforcement agencies, but also on property owners, the courts and bona fide third parties. Also, civil forfeiture law as contained in AMLATFA 2001 represents one of the most serious encroachments on private property rights. Not only that, such a legal rule has made property, and not the owner, guilty until proven innocent.

This paper could be a useful source of information for practitioners, academicians and students. It could also be a beneficial guide for policymakers for any possible future amendments to the law.

The aim of this paper is to examine some of the recent changes to the old anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing law, which is now known as the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. The paper will highlight the newly consolidated money laundering offences and the newly created offences including structuring of transactions or “smurfing”. Also, the transgression of cross-border movement of cash and negotiable instruments and tipping off about a money laundering disclosure will be assessed.

The paper uses a doctrinal legal research and secondary data, with the new AML/CFT legislation as the primary source. For comparative analysis, legislations in the UK, Australia and New Zealand are also examined. Secondary sources include case law, articles in academic journals, books and online databases.

The review of the AML/CFT law is timely and indicates the Malaysian government’s efforts to adhere to international standards set by the financial action task force. However, it is imperative that the Malaysian government addresses the remaining instrumental and normative deficiencies in the AML/CFT law to ensure that the recent legal changes are sufficiently comprehensive to prevent and regulate money laundering and terrorist financing within Malaysia.

This paper is a useful source of information for legal practitioners, academicians, law enforcement, policymakers, legislators, researchers and students.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which the courts in the UK have interpreted the meaning of criminal property in the principal money laundering offenses under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

This paper employs a doctrinal legal analysis and secondary data, which analyze the primary source, which is POCA itself, and secondary sources including case law, articles in academic journals, books and online databases.

The authors contend that the courts in the UK have been dynamically interpreting the ambit of money laundering offenses in POCA and that despite such judicial activism in the construction of criminal property, it has provided a much needed certainty to the law.

This paper could be a useful source of information for the practitioners, academicians, policymakers and students in this particular area of crime.