Frozen Accounts and Seized Assets

Frozen Accounts and Seized Assets: How Property Owners Can Challenge AMLA Orders

A freeze or seizure under the anti-money laundering law is meant to be temporary. Knowing how long it can last, what you may ask for and when the courts will step in can help owners protect what is rightfully theirs.

Introduction

For many people, the first sign of trouble is a declined card or a call from the bank. The account has been frozen on the instructions of the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or Bank Negara Malaysia. Others find that their car has been taken away, that a notice has been posted on their land, or that officers have taken over the running of their business. Salaries, loan instalments and household bills still have to be paid, but the money cannot be touched.

These powers are found in Part VI of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613), commonly known as AMLA. They allow the authorities to secure property quickly while an investigation is under way, often long before anyone is charged. This article explains the difference between freezing and seizure, how long each order can last, how an owner can ask for an order to be varied or lifted, and what the courts have said about challenging these orders and getting property back.

This article deals with the temporary stage, before any court decides whether the property should be taken permanently by the Government. Forfeiture, and the rights of innocent third parties at that stage, will be covered in a separate article.

Freezing, seizure and forfeiture: what is the difference?

The three terms are often used loosely, but the law treats them differently. A freezing order keeps the property where it is and stops anyone from dealing with it. A seizure goes further, because it takes the property out of the owner’s control or places it under an order that binds the bank, the land office or whoever holds it. Neither of them takes away ownership. Forfeiture is different, because it transfers the property to the Government, and only a court can order it.

As the Court of Appeal pointed out in one of the cases discussed below, a freezing or seizure order is about possession and control, not ownership. That point is important, because it shapes what the authorities can and cannot do with the property before a court makes a final decision.

The main powers are summarised below.

Main freezing and seizure powers under Part VI of AMLA

Freezing orders under section 44

An enforcement agency may freeze the property of a person if two conditions are met. First, an investigation into an unlawful activity must have started against that person. Second, the agency must have reasonable grounds to suspect either that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a money laundering or terrorism financing offence, or that the property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or was used to commit an offence. The threshold is suspicion, not proof, and the order can reach property wherever it is located, whether the person holds it directly or it is owed to him from some other source.

A freezing order can do more than simply block a bank account. It may direct that the property must not be disposed of, allow officers to take custody of it, and allow perishable items to be sold with the proceeds kept aside. It may also restrain the person, and anyone acting for him, from selling, charging, transferring or moving money out of Malaysia, and may require him to surrender his travel documents and not leave the country. When making the order, the agency may also give directions about the property, including for resolving ownership disputes, for managing the property while the order lasts, and for paying the person’s costs of defending criminal proceedings against him.

The agency must send a copy of the order and a list of the frozen property to the Public Prosecutor straight away. If the property is held by a bank or other financial institution, the relevant regulator must also be told. Anyone who disobeys a freezing order commits an offence punishable by a fine of up to five times the value of the frozen property or RM5 million, whichever is higher, imprisonment of up to seven years, or both.

Most importantly for owners, a freezing order is short-lived. Under section 44(5), it stops having effect 90 days after the date of the order if the person against whom it was made has not been charged with an offence under AMLA or a terrorism financing offence. In practice, the authorities often replace a freezing order with a seizure order before the 90 days run out, as happened in several of the cases discussed below.

The agency is also protected from claims for damages arising from a freezing order unless it can be shown that the order was not made in good faith. As later sections of this article show, this protection is strong, but it is not absolute.

Seizure of movable property, bank accounts, land and businesses

Movable property

An investigating officer may seize movable property, such as vehicles, cash, jewellery and share certificates, if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that it is connected with a money laundering, terrorism financing or related offence, or is the proceeds or instrument of an unlawful activity. He must first obtain approval from a more senior investigating officer. He must then prepare a signed list of what was seized and where it was found, serve a copy on the owner or the person from whom it was taken as soon as possible, and send a copy to the Public Prosecutor. The list need not be served if the seizure was carried out in the presence of the person concerned or the owner.

Seizure does not always mean that the property must sit in a police store for months. Under section 46, another investigating officer may, with approval, return the item to the owner temporarily on conditions and against security, or return it on terms that allow the owner to dispose of it, with the security standing in place of the item if it is later forfeited. Items that would decay or deteriorate may be sold. Where money or investments are held by someone other than the person under investigation, the officer may order that person not to deal with them or to hand them over. Any seizure order may be varied or revoked by the enforcement agency with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.

Money in banks and financial institutions

Where the property is money or other movable assets held by a bank or other financial institution, the relevant power is section 50. The Public Prosecutor, acting on information from the investigating officer, may order the institution not to part with, deal in or dispose of the property, or order that it be seized by the investigating officer, until the order is varied or revoked. Bank Negara Malaysia, the Securities Commission or the Labuan Financial Services Authority must be informed.

The order may also be varied. For example, if RM1 million has been seized but the investigation shows that only part of it is linked to the suspected offence, the Public Prosecutor may vary the order so that the balance is released. A bank that complies with a section 50 order is protected from any claim by its customer. A bank that does not comply commits a serious offence, which explains why banks are usually unwilling to release money without clear written instructions from the Public Prosecutor.

Land and buildings

Immovable property is seized under section 51 by a Notice of Seizure issued by the Public Prosecutor. A copy is served on the owner or occupier if known, posted at a visible spot on the property where practicable, and served on the relevant land office or registrar. The land office must then endorse the notice on the title. After that, no dealing in the property may be registered, apart from dealings by or on behalf of the Federal or State Government, a local authority or a statutory body. Anyone who deals in breach of the notice commits an offence.

Businesses

Section 52 allows an enforcement agency to seize a business carried on by or for a person who is intended to be prosecuted, by his relatives or associates, or in which any of them holds an interest of at least 30 per cent or has management control. The order may set limits on how the business operates, appoint someone to supervise it or run it, direct that its profits be paid to the Accountant General, bar particular persons from being involved, or close its premises. A person who runs the business under such an order must pay the wages of employees working in it from the profits, and if the profits are not enough, from the assets of the business.

Property outside Malaysia

Where the property is held abroad, the Public Prosecutor may apply to the High Court, without notice to the owner, for an order prohibiting the person holding it from dealing with it. Such an order lapses after 18 months if no one has been charged or prosecuted, although the court may extend it by up to 12 months on a further application.

Case in point: frozen accounts do not excuse unpaid salaries

Businesses whose accounts are frozen sometimes assume that the freeze excuses them from paying staff. Victor Peh Suan Ean v Trillion Cove Holdings Bhd (in liquidation) & Ors [2026] 2 ILJ 174 (Industrial Court, 25 February 2026) shows that this is not so. A senior legal adviser left the company after his salary for July 2023 went unpaid and his EPF contributions had not been remitted for about six months, even though his share had been deducted from his pay. The company blamed financial hardship caused by the freezing and seizure of its accounts and documents under AMLA.

The Industrial Court rejected that excuse. The freezing and seizure orders had been lifted in September 2022, before the claimant even joined the company, and there was no evidence that the company could not pay him at the relevant time. Paying salary and making statutory contributions are basic obligations of every employer. The court found that the claimant had been constructively dismissed and awarded him RM408,000, and held a subsidiary that had received most of the funds raised by the company jointly liable to pay it.

The lesson for businesses is that a freeze does not suspend employment and statutory obligations. If a business genuinely needs frozen money to pay staff, it should apply promptly for the order to be varied, as explained below, and keep a record of the application.

Time limits: when do freezing and seizure orders expire?

Because freezing and seizure are imposed on suspicion alone, Parliament built in time limits to prevent property from being tied up indefinitely. As noted above, a freezing order under section 44 lapses after 90 days if the person has not been charged. Section 52A, which came into force on 1 September 2014, provides that a seizure order stops having effect 12 months after the date of the seizure order, or 12 months after the date of any earlier freezing order, if the person against whom it was made has not been charged with an offence under AMLA.

Section 56(3) adds a related rule. If the Public Prosecutor does not apply to the High Court for forfeiture within 12 months of the seizure, the property must be released to the person from whom it was seized. The courts have treated these limits as strict. In practice, the question is often whether the prosecution took the necessary step in time, and what counts as having been charged.

Case in point: a son’s account caught up in his mother’s case

In Lim Hui Jin v CIMB Bank Bhd & Ors [2018] MLJU 981 (also reported at [2018] 8 CLJ 327), the police froze a young man’s bank account in June 2014. In September 2014, shortly after section 52A came into force, the Public Prosecutor issued a seizure order on the account, on the basis that the money was connected with money laundering offences allegedly committed by his mother. His mother was later charged. He was not. No application for forfeiture was made.

When he applied to the High Court for the release of his money, the bank said it could not act without a variation or revocation from the Public Prosecutor, and the High Court refused his application. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal. The seizure order had expired under section 52A, at the latest 12 months after it was issued, because he had not been charged. Once the order had expired, there was nothing left for the Public Prosecutor to vary or revoke, and the bar on civil proceedings in section 54(3) no longer applied. The fact that the money was the subject of criminal proceedings against his mother made no difference, because the orders were made against his account. The court ordered the release of his money, with costs against the authorities.

What does it mean to be charged?

The meaning of charged was examined in Hazrin Izzuddin bin Jamaluddin & Ors v Pendakwa Raya [2019] 5 MLJ 545 (Court of Appeal) and then by the Federal Court in Raqeem Rizqin Enterprise & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara & Anor [2019] 5 MLJ 693 (also reported at [2019] 8 CLJ 41). The police had frozen the accounts of 31 people in February 2015 in connection with an alleged scheme that exploited a weakness in a bank’s debit card system, causing losses of about RM36.9 million. Some vehicles were seized, and the Public Prosecutor later issued section 50 orders on the accounts. In early 2016, just within 12 months of the first freezing orders, the Public Prosecutor obtained arrest warrants against some of them on the strength of written consents to prosecute. No charge had been read to any of them.

The Court of Appeal held that a person is charged for the purpose of section 52A once the court takes cognisance of the offence, which happens when the consent to prosecute is placed before the court and an arrest warrant is issued. It is not necessary for the charge to have been read in court. On that basis, the orders against those people remained in force. However, the Court of Appeal went further and held that the property of the others, against whom no consent or warrant had been issued, could also remain seized, pointing to the size of the alleged fraud and the heavy workload of investigators.

Four of the owners in the second group appealed to the Federal Court, which allowed their appeal. The Federal Court agreed that a person is charged once the court takes cognisance of the offence. But there was no arrest warrant and no consent to prosecute against these four, so they had not been charged within 12 months, and no forfeiture application had been made either. Under sections 52A and 56(3), the orders had ceased to have effect and the property had to be released. The Federal Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to rely on the burden on investigators to override the clear words of the statute. Keeping the property without taking the steps required by law also denied the owners any opportunity to be heard, contrary to Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which protects the right to property.

The High Court applied the strict approach in Md Nawi bin Ab Aziz v Pendakwa Raya [2024] MLJU 1812. The owner’s bank and unit trust accounts were seized under section 50 on 7 February 2020, and he was charged in the Sessions Court on 21 March 2021, about six weeks after the 12 months ran out. The prosecution relied on an arrest warrant obtained in November 2020 to stop the clock, and also pointed to the court closures during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that an arrest warrant on its own, without a written consent to prosecute, was not enough to show that the owner had been charged in time. With no forfeiture application either, the continued seizure was unlawful and the accounts were ordered to be released. The prosecution has appealed against this decision.

Older orders are governed by the old rules

Section 52A does not apply to seizures made before it came into force. In Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Ten Jing Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2025] 4 MLJ 725 (Court of Appeal), a company’s current account was frozen in January 2013 and seized under section 50 in April 2013. The Public Prosecutor applied for forfeiture in March 2014, within 12 months of the seizure. The bank argued that the seizure had expired under section 52A. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Section 52A imposes a strict time limit that affects substantive rights, so it could not be applied backwards to an order made in 2013. Under the law at the time, the seizure stayed in force because forfeiture proceedings had been started in time.

Dealing with seized property is void

Under section 54, while a seizure is in force, any dealing in the seized property by anyone is null and void and cannot be registered, except for dealings by public officers or by or on behalf of the Government, a local authority or a statutory body. Section 54(3) goes further. While the seizure is in force, no civil action or proceedings may be started or continued in respect of the seized property, and no attachment, execution or similar process may be commenced or continued against it, whether the underlying claim arose before or after the seizure. The only exceptions are actions by the Government, a local authority or a statutory body, or with the prior written consent of the Public Prosecutor.

For buyers, lenders and judgment creditors, this means that a sale, charge or enforcement against seized property is ineffective, however genuine the transaction may be. Their remedy is to pursue the person they dealt with personally, or to come forward as a third party if forfeiture proceedings are later brought.

Case in point: a bank that released seized money

In the Hong Leong Bank case, the seized account belonged to a company that was wound up in November 2014. The bank closed the account and sent the balance of about RM1.27 million to the Insolvency Department, without telling the enforcement agency or the Public Prosecutor. Meanwhile, another company, Ten Jing, successfully claimed the money as a genuine third party in the forfeiture proceedings, and the Court of Appeal confirmed its entitlement in October 2018. By then, the money was gone.

The Court of Appeal held the bank liable to pay Ten Jing the full sum with interest, and upheld an order that it pay RM300,000 in costs. The winding-up petition had been filed after the seizure, in breach of section 54, so the winding-up order was void. Seized money did not form part of the company’s assets available to its creditors. The bank’s own witness admitted that it had no procedure for checking whether an account was subject to an AMLA order before acting on a winding-up. The court held that the scheme of the Act is designed to preserve seized property for whoever the court eventually finds to be entitled to it, whether the Government or a third party, and that a bank which releases seized money in breach of the order can be sued for the resulting loss.

Asking for a freezing order to be varied or lifted

The first step for most owners is not the court, but the agency that made the order. Section 44A provides two routes. A senior officer may vary or revoke the order on his own initiative if he is satisfied that the property is not liable to seizure. Alternatively, the person named in the order may apply in writing to the agency, setting out the grounds on which he seeks a variation or revocation. The application must be dealt with by an officer more senior than the officer who issued the order.

On such an application, the senior officer may vary the order in three ways. He may change how long the order lasts, allow the payment of debts incurred in good faith and owed to a creditor before the order was made, or allow money for reasonable living and other expenses of the person, his family or his employees. He may also revoke the order entirely. He may refuse the application only if there is reasonable suspicion that the property is connected with an offence, is terrorist property, or is the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity. Any release must be recorded in writing, with the reasons, and a copy sent to the Public Prosecutor. A release does not stop the Public Prosecutor from seizing the property again later if the grounds exist.

An application under section 44A is more likely to succeed if it is specific. Rather than simply asking for everything to be released, the owner should identify particular accounts or sums, explain what they are needed for, such as salaries, EPF and tax payments, rent, loan instalments, school fees or living expenses, and attach supporting documents. It helps to show that the money requested is unrelated to the matters under investigation, for example because it came from salary, a pension, an inheritance or a sale of family property.

The courts have recognised that a freezing order operates rather like a freezing injunction in civil proceedings, and that it should normally be possible to vary it to allow genuine business debts and ordinary expenses to be paid. But the courts have also made clear that a failure by the agency to reply quickly does not, on its own, prove bad faith. The cases below illustrate both points.

Can frozen or seized money be used to pay lawyers?

Section 44(3)(c) allows the enforcement agency, when making a freezing order, to give directions for the payment of the person’s costs of defending criminal proceedings against him. Anyone who is charged and whose assets are frozen may therefore ask the agency for such a direction.

However, the courts have refused to allow lawyers to be paid out of seized money that is being forfeited. In Tetuan Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 MLJ 1, a law firm claimed about RM398,700 in unpaid fees from money seized from a former client, who had been detained and investigated but never charged. The Public Prosecutor was seeking forfeiture of the money without a prosecution. The Federal Court, by a majority, rejected the claim. The majority held that section 44(3)(c) concerns freezing and applies only where criminal proceedings have been started against the person, so it did not help the firm in forfeiture proceedings. The unpaid bills showed only that the client owed the firm money. He was free to pay from his lawful assets, and the firm could sue him, but money found to be the proceeds of unlawful activity does not become clean by being used to pay legal fees.

Justice Mary Lim dissented. In her view, the firm’s good faith and the amount owed had never been challenged, and a reading of the Act that prevented lawyers from being paid would make an accused person’s constitutional right to counsel of his choice illusory. The majority view is the law, and it follows the earlier High Court decision in Lim Long Yew & Ors v Pendakwa Raya [2017] 9 MLJ 787, where claims by three law firms for their fees out of money forfeited after their clients’ convictions were also rejected.

For clients and lawyers alike, the practical message is to deal with fees early. Where a person faces criminal charges and his assets are frozen, a written request for a direction under section 44(3)(c) should be made promptly, and fees should otherwise be arranged from assets that are clearly not the subject of the investigation.

Challenging the order in court

An owner who is dissatisfied with a freezing or seizure order may consider applying to the High Court for judicial review. This is difficult. The general rule, confirmed by the Federal Court in other contexts, is that decisions taken in the course of a criminal investigation are not open to judicial review, because otherwise every investigation could be held up by constant court challenges. The exception is where the power was exercised in bad faith, which in this context usually means using it for a purpose other than the one the law intended.

The general rule: orders are part of the investigation

The leading AMLA example is City Growth Sdn Bhd & Anor v The Government of Malaysia [2006] 1 MLJ 581. The police had used freezing orders against a detained man to freeze the accounts of companies linked to him. When those orders lapsed on 4 July 2004, a deputy public prosecutor issued section 50 orders on the companies’ accounts the very next day. The companies argued that the orders had crippled their businesses. The High Court refused leave for judicial review. A section 50 order is part and parcel of the investigation process and is meant to secure evidence for a possible prosecution. It is not an administrative decision, and the companies’ remedies lay elsewhere.

The same approach was taken in Aman Palestin Bhd v Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Azam bin Baki & Ors [2024] MLJU 1653. The MACC froze 11 bank accounts of a charity that had collected public donations for the Palestinian cause, after announcing that it suspected misuse of about RM70 million. The charity wrote twice asking for the orders to be lifted or varied, including a request to release about RM11 million for three months of salaries and operations, but received no reply. The High Court refused leave. The charity had not pleaded bad faith or abuse of power, so the general rule applied. The court also rejected the argument that only the Public Prosecutor can freeze bank accounts. An investigating officer may freeze under section 44, while section 50 is a separate power of seizure given to the Public Prosecutor.

In Chip In Sdn Bhd v Inspektor Nur Haidy bin Omar & Ors [2025] MLJU 3358, a licensed payment gateway company had nine accounts frozen by the police in December 2024. It applied under section 44A to vary the orders to pay salaries, statutory contributions, legal fees and creditors, and later to revoke them. Seven accounts were released, but the other two were not, and they were later seized under section 50. The High Court refused leave. The company had made a general allegation of bad faith without proper particulars. The fact that some accounts were released but others were not, or that the officer did not respond to a request, did not by itself suggest any improper motive, because section 44A itself allows the officer to vary, revoke or refuse. Mere suspicion is not enough.

The exceptions: bad faith and defective orders

The courts have been willing to intervene where the facts point to a real abuse of power. In Rosli bin Dahlan v IG Tan Sri Razarudin bin Husain @ Abd Rashid & Ors [2024] MLJU 1727 (High Court, 25 July 2024), a senior lawyer was arrested, remanded and had multiple bank and unit trust accounts frozen by the police, and was then stopped at the border from leaving the country. The investigation was based on a police report by an airline against a company for which he had once acted as counsel, concerning a business dispute with which he had no personal connection. He was not questioned during his arrest, and the freezing orders were served on him only days and weeks after they were dated. The order restricting him from leaving Malaysia bore a different date from the freezing orders and was not contained in them.

The High Court granted him leave to commence judicial review. It found that the facts disclosed an arguable case that the police had acted in bad faith and for a collateral purpose, by linking him to a report with which he had no connection. The court criticised what it called a freeze first, investigate later approach, noting that section 44 requires the officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect a particular person of a particular offence before freezing. It also observed that a travel restriction under section 44(4)(c) cannot stand on its own, because it must form part of a freezing order. The challenge was not academic merely because the orders had since been lifted, since any unlawful freezing order could affect the seizure that followed and could found a claim for damages. The court relied in part on its earlier decision granting leave in a challenge by a political party to a freeze on its accounts.

In I-Serve Online Mall Sdn Bhd & Ors v Bank Negara Malaysia & Ors [2022] MLJU 2952, Bank Negara Malaysia froze the accounts of a group of companies and individuals and prohibited their employees, agents, relatives and associates from leaving Malaysia. The orders simply stated that they were issued under section 44(1), without identifying who was under investigation, for what unlawful activity, or on which ground. The applicants also complained that their application under section 44A took almost three months to decide and was only partly allowed. The High Court granted leave. The challenge was to the legality of the orders themselves, which could be decided without looking into the investigation papers. The fact that the 90 days had passed did not make the case academic, because the applicants might be entitled to damages if the orders were found to be invalid.

It is worth noting that both Rosli bin Dahlan and I-Serve were decisions at the leave stage, which only requires an arguable case, and Aman Palestin later declined to follow I-Serve. The position is therefore not fully settled. What the cases do show is that an application with a clear, well-documented case of bad faith or a legal defect in the order itself has a much better chance than a general complaint that the freeze is unfair.

Expiry is a different matter

An owner who says that an order has simply expired is in a stronger position. That argument does not ask the court to review the investigation, but only to apply the statutory time limit. In Lim Hui Jin, Raqeem Rizqin and Md Nawi, the owners applied to the High Court by originating summons or notice of motion for the release of their property, and the courts ordered release once they were satisfied that the time limits had passed without a charge or forfeiture application.

Getting property back: release under section 60

Seized property does not have to wait until the end of the case to be returned. Under section 60, before the property is forfeited, an investigating officer other than the one who seized it may release it to the person determined to be lawfully entitled to it, if satisfied that it is not liable to forfeiture and is not needed for any proceedings under AMLA or any prosecution under another law. The officer must record the reasons in writing and send a copy to the Public Prosecutor. The officer, the Federal Government and those acting on its behalf are protected from proceedings if the seizure and release were carried out in good faith.

Readers should note that the wording of section 60 has changed. In the cases below, the provision required the release to be made with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, who determined who was entitled to the property. The current text of the Act refers to the investigating officer making that determination. Anyone affected by a release should check the version of the provision that applied at the time.

Case in point: release to a third party quashed

In Rosalind Tan Kheng Suan v Peguam Negara Malaysia & Ors [2025] MLJU 2803 (also reported at [2025] 9 CLJ 440), a former employee was investigated for criminal breach of trust after her employer lodged a police report. The Public Prosecutor seized four of her bank accounts, holding about RM685,000, under section 50. The employer had also sued her in a separate civil action and obtained a freezing injunction over the same accounts. She was never charged. Instead, the investigating officer, with the Public Prosecutor’s consent, issued release notices directing the bank to pay the money to her former employer. She was not told beforehand and was given no chance to be heard.

The Court of Appeal quashed the release notices. By the time they were issued, the money was no longer needed for any investigation or prosecution, so the decision to release it was administrative and could be reviewed by a civil court. Since freezing and seizure do not take away ownership, the person from whom property was seized must be presumed to be its owner, and section 60 had to be read together with the rule that unforfeited property is returned to that person. If someone else claims the property, that dispute belongs in the civil courts, where the employer’s own claim was already pending. Reading section 60 as allowing the Public Prosecutor to decide the ownership dispute himself, without hearing the account holder, would conflict with the constitutional protection of property and with natural justice.

Case in point: naming the right decision maker

The importance of getting the procedure right is shown by Chan Eng Leong & Anor v Albany bin Hamzah, DSP & Ors [2026] MLJU 1712. The police seized share certificates belonging to two shareholders of a tobacco company in the middle of a bitter shareholders’ dispute. They later released the certificates, with the consent of a deputy public prosecutor, to the person who had originally owned the shares. The deputy public prosecutor explained on affidavit that his investigation showed the transfer to the applicants had been obtained by deception.

The applicants sought judicial review, relying on Rosalind Tan. The High Court dismissed their application without deciding the merits, because they had named the investigating officers, the Government and the Companies Commission as respondents, but not the Public Prosecutor or the deputy public prosecutor who had actually made the decision. The court held that the decision of the Public Prosecutor cannot be equated with a decision of the Government, and that without him as a party, the court could not quash his decision or order him to act. In Rosalind Tan, by contrast, the Attorney General and the deputy public prosecutor had been named. The court also pointed out that the applicants had been inconsistent in arguing that the authorities could not decide ownership while asking the court to compel the authorities to release the certificates to them.

A practical checklist

Read the order carefully. Note the date, the section under which it was made, the agency or officer who issued it, and exactly which property it covers. Keep every letter and notice you receive.

Diarise the time limits. Work out when 90 days from a freezing order and 12 months from a seizure or earlier freezing order will expire. If they pass without a charge or a forfeiture application, ask in writing for release, and if necessary apply to the High Court.

Apply under section 44A early and specifically. Identify the accounts or sums you need, explain what they are for, and attach documents showing that the money is unrelated to the investigation. Follow up in writing and keep copies.

Keep paying staff and statutory contributions. A freeze does not excuse a business from paying wages, EPF or tax. If you need frozen funds for these, apply for a variation rather than simply stopping payment.

Arrange legal fees properly. If you have been charged, ask for a direction under section 44(3)(c). Otherwise, pay from assets that are clearly not under investigation.

Do not deal with seized property. Any sale, charge or transfer will be void, and breaching an order is an offence. Creditors should not start or continue civil proceedings against seized property without the Public Prosecutor’s written consent.

For banks and custodians. Record every AMLA order in your systems and do not release seized assets on a winding-up or any other instruction without confirming the status of the order with the authorities.

Before going to court. Judicial review is only likely to succeed where there is concrete evidence of bad faith, a legal defect in the order, or an administrative decision such as a release to a third party. Plead the grounds with full particulars, act promptly, and name the correct decision maker, including the Public Prosecutor where he made or consented to the decision.

Conclusion

AMLA gives the authorities wide powers to freeze and seize property on suspicion alone, often long before anyone is charged, and most challenges to those powers in court fail. But the powers are not unlimited. Freezing and seizure are meant to be temporary, and the courts have enforced the time limits strictly, even where large sums were involved. The Act allows orders to be varied for genuine debts and living expenses, and the courts have stepped in where there is real evidence of bad faith, where an order is defective on its face, or where the authorities have tried to decide an ownership dispute that belongs in a civil court.

For owners, the key is to act early, keep careful records, make specific requests to the agency concerned, and watch the calendar. For banks, businesses and creditors, the cases are a reminder that seized property must be preserved until the law decides who is entitled to it. Whether that decision is in favour of the owner, a third party or the Government is a question for the next stage, forfeiture, which will be the subject of the next article in this series.