Rosalind Tan Kheng Suan v Peguam Negara Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Rosalind Tan Kheng Suan

Respondent(s):

• Peguam Negara Malaysia
• Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Nor Raihan Binti Rithwan, Unit Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram Dan Pelucuthakan Harta Jenayah, Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara
• Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram (AMLA), Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Bukit Aman
• Pegawai Penyiasat Insp Mohd Rozimi bin Mustapha, Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram (AMLA), Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Bukit Aman
• Pegawai Penyiasat Kanan AMLA DSP Albany Bin Hamzah, Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Pengubahan Wang Haram (AMLA), Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil, Bukit Aman

• YA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. Moorthy
• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

• The appellant's bank accounts were seized under Section 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) following a criminal breach of trust investigation, but no charges were subsequently filed against her.
• The appellant's former employer, Penang Medical College Sdn. Bhd., had also obtained a Mareva Injunction over the appellant's assets, including the seized bank accounts.
• The investigating officer, with the Deputy Public Prosecutor's consent, issued Notices of Release under Section 60(1) AMLATFPUAA, instructing the bank to release the seized funds directly to the former employer without notifying the appellant or granting her a right to be heard. The High Court dismissed the appellant's judicial review application.

• Whether a civil Court has jurisdiction to judicially review a decision made under Section 60(1) AMLATFPUAA, which the respondents contended arose from a criminal matter.
• Whether the Public Prosecutor's determination under Section 60(1) AMLATFPUAA to release seized money to a third party without prior notice or the right to be heard for the account holder violates Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.
• How Section 60(1) AMLATFPUAA should be interpreted harmoniously with other provisions of the Act and fundamental constitutional rights.

• The Court held that the decision to release seized property under Section 60(1) AMLATFPUAA is an administrative decision, amenable to judicial review by a civil Court, as it was not made in furtherance of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.
• The Court found that a literal interpretation of Section 60(1) would violate Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution and principles of natural justice by allowing the Public Prosecutor to determine legal ownership of property without due process.
• Adopting a purposive and harmonious interpretation, the Court ruled that the Public Prosecutor cannot usurp the civil Court's function in determining disputed lawful entitlement to property, especially when the owner is known; thus, the Notices of Release were quashed.