Some money in an account is linked to crime, can govt take all of it? Court of Appeal says no

The Court of Appeal in Malaysia has ruled that while authorities can confiscate funds directly linked to a crime, they cannot automatically seize the entire contents of a bank account without evidence connecting all funds to the offense.

This decision came after LWC Good Service Sdn Bhd challenged a High Court order to forfeit funds from its accounts under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

The court ordered the forfeiture of RM360,000 traced to a scam but instructed that the remaining funds be returned, emphasizing that suspicion does not replace legal proof.

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 7 — When money from an investment scam landed in a company’s bank account, the government moved to seize everything in it, but the Court of Appeal has now drawn a line on how far such confiscation can go.

A three-judge panel ruled that authorities can take money proven to be linked to a crime, but cannot automatically seize the rest of the money in the same account without evidence connecting it to the offence, news outlet Free Malaysia Today ( FMT ) reported today.

The ruling came after LWC Good Service Sdn Bhd challenged a High Court order allowing the government to forfeit RM1.36 million from two of its bank accounts under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla).

The prosecution was able to trace RM360,000 directly from a bank account linked to the Comoncaps investment scam into LWC’s Hong Leong Bank account, according to the FMT report.

But the court found there was no evidence showing that the rest of the money in LWC’s accounts came from the scam.

As such, the panel comprising Datuk Azman Abdullah, Dean Wayne Daly and chaired by K. Muniandy, ordered the RM360,000 to be forfeited, while directing that RM863,179.84 in the Hong Leong Bank account and RM139,329.24 in LWC’s CIMB account be returned to the company.

In delivering the unanimous judgment, Muniandy said suspicion alone was not enough to justify taking money that had not been proven to be linked to criminal activity, FMT reported.

“Suspicion, however compelling or grave, does not take the place of legal proof,” he was quoted as saying in the written grounds.

The judge said Amla could not be turned into a broad tool for confiscating money simply because a company had irregularities or dealt with business partners who failed to comply with financial requirements.

In simple terms, the court said the money that could be traced to the scam had to be separated from the rest rather than treating the entire bank account as criminal proceeds.

LWC was among 28 respondents in civil forfeiture proceedings arising from the Comoncaps investment fraud, in which 22 victims allegedly lost about RM3.49 million.

The High Court had previously ordered the entire balance of RM1.223 million in LWC’s Hong Leong Bank account and RM139,329.24 in its CIMB account to be forfeited.

The Court of Appeal said the High Court had erred by failing to distinguish the RM360,000 that was proven to be linked to the scam from the remaining funds, according to FMT.

National Unity Ministry to study effectiveness of existing 3R, hate speech laws

Azalina: Follow-up action on audits generates over RM920m in government revenue

Tax-exempt taxpayers can opt to keep using e-invoices, says Liew

Repatriation among key issues as Myanmar president arrives in Malaysia

马来西亚上诉法院裁定，虽然当局可以没收与犯罪直接相关的资金，但如果没有证据将所有资金与犯罪联系起来，他们不能自动扣押银行账户中的全部内容。

此前，LWC Good Service Sdn Bhd 对高等法院依据反洗钱法没收其账户资金的命令提出质疑。

法庭下令没收涉嫌诈骗的 36 万令吉，但指示返还剩余资金，并强调怀疑不能代替法律证据。

布城，10 月 7 日讯——当投资诈骗所得款项流入一家公司的银行账户时，政府采取行动没收了账户中的所有资金，但上诉法院现在划定了此类没收的范围。

据新闻媒体《今日自由马来西亚》（FMT）今日报道，一个由三名法官组成的小组裁定，当局可以没收经证实与犯罪有关的资金，但如果没有证据将剩余资金与犯罪联系起来，则不能自动没收同一账户中的其余资金。

此前，LWC Good Service Sdn Bhd 对高等法院的一项命令提出质疑，该命令允许政府根据 2001 年《反洗钱、反恐怖主义融资和非法活动收益法》（Amla）没收该公司两个银行账户中的 136 万令吉。

据 FMT 报道，检方成功追踪到 36 万令吉直接从与 Comoncaps 投资骗局有关的银行账户流入 LWC 的丰隆银行账户。

但法院认定没有证据表明 LWC 账户中的其余资金来自诈骗所得。

因此，由拿督阿兹曼·阿卜杜拉、院长韦恩·戴利和K·穆尼亚迪担任主席的小组下令没收360,000令吉，同时指示将丰隆银行账户中的863,179.84令吉和LWC在CIMB银行账户中的139,329.24令吉返还给该公司。

据 FMT 报道，穆尼亚迪在宣读一致判决时表示，仅凭怀疑不足以证明没收与犯罪活动有关的资金是正当的。

“无论怀疑多么令人信服或多么严重，都不能代替法律证据，”他在书面理由中被引述说。

法官表示，不能仅仅因为一家公司存在违规行为或与未能遵守财务要求的商业伙伴进行交易，就将《阿姆拉法》变成没收资金的广泛工具。

简而言之，法院表示，必须将能够追溯到诈骗案的资金与其他资金分开，而不是将整个银行账户视为犯罪所得。

LWC是Comoncaps投资欺诈案引发的民事没收诉讼中的28名被告之一，据称该案中有22名受害者损失了约349万令吉。

高等法院此前已下令没收 LWC 在丰隆银行账户中的全部余额 122.3 万令吉和在 CIMB 账户中的全部余额 139,329.24 令吉。

据 FMT 报道，上诉法院表示，高等法院未能将已证实与该骗局有关的 36 万令吉与剩余资金区分开来，这是错误的。

国家团结部将研究现行“3R”政策和仇恨言论法的有效性

阿扎丽娜：审计后续行动可为政府带来超过9.2亿令吉的收入

刘先生表示，免税纳税人可以选择继续使用电子发票。

缅甸总统抵达马来西亚，遣返问题是关键议题之一。