My Bank Account Has Been Frozen

My Bank Account Has Been Frozen: What Sections 44 and 44A of AMLA Mean for You

Freezing orders, release applications and when the courts will step in

It often starts with a failed transfer. A payment does not go through, and the bank says only that the account has been frozen on instructions from an enforcement agency.

In one reported case, a political party discovered that its accounts were frozen only when several banking transactions could not be made. In another, a lawyer found out his accounts had been frozen while he was being remanded.

This article explains:

• how freezing orders work under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA),
• how to ask for money to be released, and
• when the courts will step in.

Who can freeze your account, and when?

Under section 44(1), an enforcement agency such as the police or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) may freeze any property of a person if two conditions are met.

First, an investigation into an unlawful activity has started against that person.

Second, the agency has 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 proceeds of an unlawful activity or was used to commit an offence.

In Aman Palestin Bhd v Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Azam bin Baki & Ors [2024] MLJU 1653, the High Court confirmed that an investigating officer can issue a freezing order on his own. The involvement of the Public Prosecutor only arises later, if the money is to be seized under section 50.

What a freezing order can do

A freezing order can go well beyond blocking withdrawals. Under section 44, it may:

• prohibit the property from being disposed of or dealt with,
• allow officers to take custody of the property, and to sell perishable items and hold the proceeds,
• restrain the person, and his nominees, relatives, employees or agents, from selling, charging, transferring or otherwise dealing with the property,
• prohibit the person from sending money or property out of Malaysia, and
• bar the person from leaving Malaysia and require him to surrender his travel documents to the Director-General of Immigration within one week.

Failing to comply with a freezing order is itself an offence. The penalty is a fine of up to five times the value of the frozen property or RM5 million, whichever is higher, or imprisonment of up to seven years, or both.

On travel bans, Rosli bin Dahlan v IG Tan Sri Razarudin & Ors [2024] 11 MLJ 381 is instructive. The High Court observed that an exit prohibition under section 44(4)(c) must be part of the freezing order. A separate travel ban issued days later was, at the leave stage, regarded as arguably beyond the agency’s power.

How long does a freeze last?

Under section 44(5), a freezing order lapses after 90 days if the person has not been charged with an AMLA offence.

However, the end of a freeze is often the start of the next step. In several reported cases, frozen money was later seized by order of the Public Prosecutor under section 50:

• CIMB Bank Bhd v Tan Hoo Eng [2021] MLJU 935: freezing orders in 2014 were followed by a seizure order a few months later. The accounts were only released by a court order in 2020.
• Ahmad Zakwan bin Mohamad Sharif v Inspektor Nur Haidy bin Omar & Ors [2025] MLJU 3357: the remaining frozen accounts were seized under section 50 after the owner’s company asked for their release.
• The Rosli bin Dahlan matter: units in several unit trust funds were seized even though the account itself was released.

Once property is seized, the Public Prosecutor has 12 months from the date of seizure or freezing to apply for forfeiture where there is no prosecution.

Asking for release: section 44A

Section 44A gives the person named in a freezing order a formal way to ask for the order to be varied or revoked. Parliament introduced the provision so that frozen funds could be released for living costs, reasonable expenses and the payment of debts, with a written record sent to the Public Prosecutor as a check and balance.

How it works

• The application must be in writing to the enforcement agency and must set out the grounds relied on.
• It is decided by an officer senior in rank to the officer who issued the order.
• The senior officer may vary the order by shortening its duration, by allowing payment of debts that were incurred in good faith before the order was made, or by allowing reasonable living and other expenses for the person, his family or his employees.
• The senior officer may revoke the order.
• Or the senior officer may refuse if there is reasonable suspicion that the property is linked to an offence or is proceeds of an unlawful activity.
• Release is not final. Money released under section 44A can still be seized later by the Public Prosecutor.

Four cases show how this plays out in practice.

Simplex Sdn Bhd v Mohd Samsol bin Md Muzer & Anor [2015] 9 MLJ 78 (High Court)

A company wrote to the agency on the same day its account was frozen, asking for money to pay salaries and creditors. It went to court before the agency had replied.

This case was decided before section 44A came into force, when the company had to rely on the agency’s power to give directions under section 44(3). The court refused leave. It held that the court could not compel a decision that the agency had not yet made, and that the company should have waited for a reply.

Datuk Kapten (B) Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya & Anor v Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Hj Azam bin Baki & Ors [2023] MLJU 1298 (High Court)

A political party’s requests for release were rejected on the ground that its accounts were under investigation. The court granted leave for judicial review but refused interim release.

It reasoned that releasing money before the substantive hearing would reduce the frozen funds and interfere with the agency’s own power under section 44A.

Ahmad Zakwan bin Mohamad Sharif v Inspektor Nur Haidy bin Omar & Ors [2025] MLJU 3357 (High Court)

Some of the owner’s accounts were released and others were not. The court held that releasing some accounts does not mean the agency accepted that no offence was committed.

The court also stressed that the application must come from the person named in the order. A letter from his company did not count as his own application.

Rosli bin Dahlan v IG Tan Sri Razarudin & Ors [2024] 11 MLJ 381 (High Court)

The lawyer asked for RM50,000 a month for debts and living expenses under section 44A(4)(a). The freeze was later lifted after he filed his court challenge.

Your loans do not stop running

A frozen account does not suspend your obligations to your bank and other creditors. These are two separate issues.

• CIMB Bank Bhd v Tan Hoo Eng (2021): the customer’s deposits were frozen and seized, but the bank still obtained judgment on her overdraft and flexi loan facilities. The courts did not accept that the freeze excused her from paying.
• Rosli bin Dahlan (2024): monthly payments deducted from the frozen accounts stopped, and the lawyer became recorded as a defaulter.

Account holders should therefore raise loan instalments and other existing commitments in their section 44A application as early as possible.

Can frozen money be used to pay lawyers?

Section 44(3)(c) allows the agency, when making a freezing order, to give directions for property to be used to pay the costs of defending criminal proceedings. The courts, however, have been strict about this.

Tetuan Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 MLJ 1 (Federal Court)

A law firm claimed its unpaid fees from money that was about to be forfeited. By majority, the Federal Court held that proceeds of an unlawful activity do not become clean by being used to pay legal fees.

It also held that section 44(3)(c) applies at the freezing stage where criminal proceedings have been brought, and not to forfeiture proceedings. Justice Mary Lim dissented, holding that the firm had shown good cause and that the right to counsel under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution supported its claim.

Lim Long Yew & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2017] 9 MLJ 787 (High Court)

Lawyers’ claims for fees from forfeited money were similarly rejected.

Can you challenge the freeze in court?

The general rule

Freezing and seizure orders are treated as part of a criminal investigation. As a general rule, they cannot be challenged by judicial review. Otherwise every investigation could be held up by constant court challenges.

This principle was applied to AMLA orders in Simplex and in City Growth Sdn Bhd v The Government of Malaysia, which the High Court cited in Simplex. It has been affirmed by the Federal Court in Empayar Canggih and Latheefa Beebi Koya.

In addition, section 57 of AMLA provides that a freeze or seizure is not invalidated merely because of objections about how or where it was carried out, or because of procedural lapses. The Court of Appeal applied this in Lau Yong Ying v The Bank of Punjab & Ors [2018] 4 MLJ 88.

The exception

The main exception is bad faith (mala fide). This means using the power for a purpose other than the one for which it was given. Mere suspicion of bad faith is not enough. The allegation must be clearly pleaded with proper particulars.

Cases where leave was granted

• In Rosli bin Dahlan, the court found an arguable case of abuse of power. The grounds included arrest without questioning, orders served weeks after they were dated, and a link to an unrelated police report. The decision is under appeal.
• In Muhammad Suhaimi, the court held that the legality of a freezing order could, in appropriate circumstances, be reviewed.

Cases where leave was refused

• In Aman Palestin, no bad faith had been pleaded, so the general rule applied. The judge also declined to follow Muhammad Suhaimi, preferring the Federal Court line of cases.
• In Ahmad Zakwan, bad faith was mentioned but not properly particularised. The matters raised did not show any improper motive.
• In Rosli bin Dahlan v Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh & Ors [2024] MLJU 2636, a challenge to the later seizure order failed. No bad faith was alleged against the deputy public prosecutor who issued it.

As the High Court decisions do not all point the same way, the position on reviewing freezing orders may be clarified further by the appellate courts.

On damages, section 44(6) protects the enforcement agency from liability unless it is proved that the freezing order was not made in good faith.

A practical checklist

1. Ask the bank which agency issued the order, then request a copy of the order from that agency.
2. Apply in writing under section 44A in your own name, as the person named in the order. State your grounds clearly and list your salary obligations, loan instalments, family expenses and existing debts with supporting documents.
3. Wait for the agency’s decision, or give it a reasonable time to respond, before going to court.
4. Keep paying your loans from other sources where possible, or speak to your bank early.
5. Check whether a travel ban has been imposed before making travel plans.
6. Note the dates. Watch for the 90-day mark if you have not been charged, and be prepared for a possible seizure order under section 50.
7. Consider judicial review only if there is genuine evidence of bad faith, and make sure it is properly pleaded.