PUTRAJAYA (Oct 6): The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's order forfeiting RM4,084,729 belonging to Ammeltz Marketing Sdn Bhd to the government.

A three-member bench comprising judges Datuk Noorin Badaruddin, Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid and Datuk Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid dismissed the company's appeal.

In the judgment dated Sept 18, uploaded to the judiciary's website, judge Noorin said the prosecution's case was supported by documentary evidence and affidavits from investigating officers.

She said the High Court judge was entitled to conclude that the company had failed to provide a credible explanation for the funds in its account.

“The evidence established the four underlying unlawful activities which are the movement of funds through successive accounts; the position of the appellant’s (the company) account within that sequence; the commingling of funds; the circumstances surrounding the operation of the account and the absence of a credible and reliable explanation from the appellant,” she said.

Noorin said the panel also rejected Ammeltz Marketing’s argument that the absence of a prosecution or conviction against the parties involved was, by itself, fatal to the forfeiture application.

She said Section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 did not require the prosecution to establish a complete forensic, ringgit-for-ringgit tracing of every transaction in the final account before a forfeiture order is made.

She said the High Court’s decision was not based solely on the commingling of funds, but on the cumulative effect of several circumstances, including the money trail and successive layers through which the funds had moved.

On Feb 20 last year, the Shah Alam High Court allowed the prosecution's application to forfeit RM4,084,729.92, together with any accretion thereto, standing to the credit of the company's bank account.

The High Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the seized funds were linked to a money laundering offence under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.

The forfeiture proceedings arose from investigations into four separate complaints involving four victims and the movement of monies through several bank accounts.

The complaints included alleged unauthorised access to an account and transfers of money without the account holder's authority, as well as alleged non-existent investment and part-time employment schemes.

The prosecution filed the forfeiture application on Nov 10, 2023, claiming that the company's bank account constituted a later layer in the movement of illicit funds.

The application was brought under the statutory regime governing forfeiture where no prosecution or conviction had been secured.

Ammeltz Marketing, however, maintained that the balance in its bank account consisted predominantly of legitimate business funds.

Uploaded by Magessan Varatharaja