JJ Power Groups Enterprise & Ors V Public Prosecutor [2025] 5 MLJ 197

 Federal Court (Putrajaya)

 Criminal Procedure — Forfeiture — Forfeiture of seized properties

1. The Appellants, including JJ Power Groups Enterprise, PCP Global Tech Sdn Bhd, Lee Choong Sen (LCS), and Alvin Chong Yew Kuan, operated a “get-rich-quick” scheme called JJ Poor to Rich (JJPTR), founded by LCS. The scheme promised investors monthly returns of 20% through supposed foreign currency trading but was not licensed by Bank Negara Malaysia.
2. In 2016–2017, several investors lodged police reports after discovering that JJPTR was fraudulent. Investigations revealed that the Appellants had used investors’ funds to purchase properties and vehicles, and to finance gambling activities. The Public Prosecutor froze their bank accounts and seized assets believed to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
3. LCS was charged for cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code but was later discharged not amounting to an acquittal. As there was no conviction, the PP applied under section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) to forfeit the seized assets, claiming they were linked to money laundering.
4. The High Court held that the Public Prosecutor had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the seized assets were proceeds of cheating and ordered their forfeiture to the Federal Government. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.
5. The Appellants appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that the PP should have proven the predicate offence of cheating beyond reasonable doubt before the assets could be forfeited.

1. Whether the Public Prosecutor must prove the predicate offence (cheating under section 420 Penal Code) beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the “balance of probabilities” standard applies in forfeiture proceedings under section 56 of AMLA?

(1)  Whether the Public Prosecutor must prove the predicate offence (cheating under section 420 Penal Code) beyond reasonable doubt, or whether the “balance of probabilities” standard applies in forfeiture proceedings under section 56 of AMLA?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the appropriate standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings under section 56 AMLA is the balance of probabilities. The Court emphasized that forfeiture proceedings under section 56 of AMLA are civil in nature and form a special regime distinct from criminal prosecutions under AMLA. Hence, the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” does not apply.

(b) The Federal Court held that subsections 56(4) and 70(1) of AMLA clearly stipulate that any question of fact arising in such proceedings must be decided on the balance of probabilities. Conversely, subsection 70(2) of AMLA which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, applies only to “proceedings for an offence under this Act or any subsidiary legislation under it.”

(c)  The Federal Court clarified that this refers to prosecutions for money laundering or terrorism financing offences under AMLA itself, and not to predicate offences such as cheating under the Penal Code.

(d) The Federal Court expressly held that the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Simplex Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 32 was wrongly decided. The Simplex case had interpreted subsection 70(2) of AMLA, to require the predicate offence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before applying the civil standard to forfeiture, thereby creating a “two-tier standard of proof.” The Federal Court rejected this approach, ruling that Parliament never intended such dual standards to exist under AMLA.

(e)  The Federal Court opined that –

“The forfeiture of property proceedings envisaged under section 56 of AMLA is a special regime specifically provided for where there is no prosecution or conviction for money laundering or terrorism financing offences. In proving each and every element in that proceeding, sections 56(4) and 70 of AMLA impose no other standard but the balance of probabilities.” (para [60])

(f)   The Federal Court further explained that “predicate offences” like cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code are not “offences under AMLA or its subsidiary legislation” within the meaning of section 70(2). Thus, requiring the Public Prosecutor to prove such predicate offences beyond reasonable doubt would distort the legislative intent and undermine AMLA’s preventive purpose.

1. The Federal Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. The forfeiture of the Appellants’ seized properties was upheld. The Court confirmed that in forfeiture applications under section 56 AMLA, the appropriate standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Forfeiture under AMLA is a civil-based proceeding that applies the balance of probabilities standard, not the criminal standard of proof.
2. Subsection 70(2) AMLA applies only to offences under AMLA itself (e.g., money laundering or terrorism financing), not to predicate offences under other laws.
3. The case of Simplex Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Prosecutor was wrongly decided and is no longer good law on this issue.
4. Appellate courts will not interfere with a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong.