An analysis of the forfeiture regime under the anti-money laundering law
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-12-2020-0140 |
| Published date | 23 April 2021 |
| Date | 23 April 2021 |
| Pages | 50-62 |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial compliance/regulation,Financial crime |
| Author | Aspalella A. Rahman |
An analysis of the forfeiture
regime under the anti-money
laundering law
Aspalella A. Rahman
School of Law, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM),
Sintok, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to analyze the forfeiture regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering
law. Apart from discussing the relevant provisions, several court cases also were examined to identify the
problemswhich arise in the implementation of such a powerful forfeitureregime.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper mainly relies on statutesand court cases as its primary
sources of information. It is supported by secondary data to justify the analysis. This paper also used
analyticaldescriptive approach to analyze relevant forfeitureprovisions from statutes and to examine current
court casesregarding the implementation of the forfeiture regime.
Findings –The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities
Act (AMLATFPUAA) provides comprehensive procedures for the forfeiture of criminal proceeds. Any
limitations of the previous statutory legislations have been addressed, and more importantly, the
AMLATFPUAA introducesmore powerful and innovative measures thatcan facilitate the recovery of illegal
proceeds from money launderingand any other serious crimes. The AMLATFPUAA also provides avenue
for the bona fide third parties to contestthe forfeiture order. However, it appears that such right is not easyto
be enforced.
Originality/value –This paper providesan analysis of the forfeitureregime under Malaysian anti-money
launderinglaws. It is hoped that the content of this paper can provide some insightinto this particular area for
enforcement authorities,practitioners, academics, policymakers and legal advisers not only in Malaysia but
also elsewhere. The findingsof this paper also expose any weakness or lacunae in theaspects of application
and implementation of the forfeiture regime. Thus, more effective andworkable legal solution especially on
the issue ofcivil forfeiture of criminal assets couldbe considered for further accomplishment.
Keywords Malaysia, Anti-Money Laundering Law, Seizure, Forfeiture, Bona fide third party,
Freezing
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The criminalization of money laundering is considered to be a positive development in the
fight against criminal activities. Effective investigation and prosecution of the launderers
and the confiscation of funds in the possession of the launderers can have a significantly
crippling impact on the finances of criminal organizations. The rationale behind this
approach is that it will not only hamper the ability of criminal organizations to finance
further criminal operations but will also lead to the successful prosecution of the
perpetrators.
Malaysia passed theAnti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism FinancingAct in 2001.
In 2014, it was renamed the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and
Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (2001) (AMLATFPUAA). The AMLATFPUAA is
enforced by multi-law enforcement authorities led by the Central Bank of Malaysia. It was
JMLC
25,1
50
Journalof Money Laundering
Control
Vol.25 No. 1, 2022
pp. 50-62
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/JMLC-12-2020-0140
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1368-5201.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial