Ammeltz Marketing Sdn Bhd v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Ammeltz Marketing Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Datuk Meor Hashimi bin Abdul Hamid

• Investigations into four predicate offences (unauthorised account access and cheating scams) involving four victims traced a money trail through successive layered bank accounts, ultimately reaching the appellant company's CIMB account holding RM4,084,729.92.
• The Public Prosecutor applied under s.56(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613) for forfeiture, as no prosecution or conviction had been brought against the appellant under s.4(1) of the Act.
• The appellant's director filed an affidavit claiming the account was used for legitimate business, but the High Court rejected this affidavit after finding irregularities in the director's signature, and ordered forfeiture of the entire account balance.

• Whether forfeiture of the entire account balance was permissible absent proof that the whole sum, transaction-by-transaction, constituted proceeds of unlawful activity connected to the predicate offences.
• Whether commingling of tainted funds with other monies as they passed through successive layered accounts defeated the unlawful character of the property for forfeiture purposes under s.56 Act 613.
• Whether the significant disparity between the victims' losses, the traced tainted sums, and the much larger forfeited balance rendered the forfeiture order disproportionate or unsustainable in law.

• The Court held that s.56 Act 613 does not require the Prosecution to establish a direct, ringgit-for-ringgit forensic link between every transaction in the account and the unlawful activity; it suffices that the property, viewed cumulatively in context, is shown on a balance of probabilities to fall within s.56(2), following Liew Ket Boh and distinguishing Billion Nova and Kuala Dimensi.
• The Court affirmed that commingling of illicit funds with other monies does not, as a matter of law, cleanse the property of its unlawful character, and the forfeiture finding here was properly based on the cumulative evidence of the money trail, layering, and lack of credible explanation, not commingling alone.
• The Court found no error in the High Court's rejection of the director's affidavit (due to disputed signature evidence) and upheld the finding that the appellant failed to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under s.56(2)(b); the appeal was dismissed and the forfeiture order affirmed.