JJ Power Groups Enterprise & Ors v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s):

• JJ Power Groups Enterprise
• JJ Global Network Holdings Berhad
• JJ Global Network
• Utopia Entertainment Sdn Bhd
• PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd
• L&L Property Ventures Sdn Bhd
• JJ Global Recipe Sdn Bhd
• Penang Old Wong Sdn Bhd
• JTOM International Sdn Bhd
• Hansard Group Sdn Bhd
• Job Cafe Sdn Bhd
• Babablue Sdn Bhd
• JJ Global Creative Enterprise
• Golden Pheonix Restaurant
• Team V Team Sdn Bhd
• Lee Choong Sen
• Tan Kai Lee
• Lee Thean Chye
• Ooi Ah Sim
• Hng Chun Cheat
• Quah Li Chuan
• Ho Giao Hoong
• Ho Giao Yen
• Alvin Chong Yew Kuan

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YAA Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim
• YA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam Suan
• YA Dato' Abu Bakar Bin Jais

• Police investigation was initiated following reports regarding the "JJPTR scheme," which promised investors high monthly returns on deposits or investments.
• The investigation revealed that investors were deceived into believing JJPTR was a licensed foreign currency trading business, despite it being an unlicensed deposit-taking scheme.
• This led to investigations for cheating under the Penal Code and money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA 2001), resulting in the seizure of various properties and bank accounts.

• What is the correct standard of proof required to establish a "predicate offence" (unlawful activity) in a forfeiture proceeding under section 56 of AMLA 2001, particularly when there is no prior prosecution or conviction for the predicate offence?
• Whether the lower Courts erred in finding that the JJPTR scheme constituted the predicate offence of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code.
• Whether the lower Courts' concurrent findings of fact regarding the link between the seized properties and the unlawful activity were "plainly wrong."

• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower Courts' decision to forfeit the properties.
• The Court held that in forfeiture proceedings under section 56 of AMLA 2001, the standard of proof for all questions of fact, including the existence of the "unlawful activity" (predicate offence), is on the balance of probabilities, as stipulated by sections 56(4) and 70(1) of the Act.
• The Court clarified that section 70(2) of AMLA 2001, which mandates proof beyond reasonable doubt, applies only to prosecutions for offences *under AMLA itself* (e.g., money laundering), and not to the predicate offences (e.g., cheating under the Penal Code) in forfeiture proceedings.
• The Court found no reason to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the lower Courts, concluding that their assessment of the evidence was not "plainly wrong" and sufficiently established the predicate offence of cheating and the properties' link to unlawful activity.