How Long Can the Authorities Hold My Assets? Time Limits on Seizure Orders
How Long Can the Authorities Hold My Assets? Time Limits on Seizure Orders
Why freezing and seizure orders under the Anti-Money Laundering Act do not last forever, what stops the clock, and what the courts have said when the authorities held on too long
When Your Money Is Stuck
For many people, the first sign of a money laundering investigation is not a knock on the door but a bank card that stops working. The bank explains that the account has been “frozen” on the instructions of the police, the MACC or another enforcement agency. Weeks turn into months, and the question becomes urgent: how long can the authorities keep my money?
The answer is that the law sets firm limits. Part VI of AMLA gives enforcement agencies and the Public Prosecutor wide powers to freeze and seize property, but Parliament has also attached expiry dates to those powers. The Federal Court has explained that these time limits exist to balance the wide powers of enforcement agencies against the right to property protected by Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.
An earlier article in this series explained how freezing and seizure work in general. This article focuses on one question: the clock. It explains how long each type of order lasts, what stops the clock from running out, and what happens when it does.
Freezing and Seizure: Two Different Orders
Although people often use the words interchangeably, AMLA treats freezing and seizure as different orders with different time limits.
Freezing order | Seizure order | |
|---|---|---|
Main provision | Section 44 | Sections 45 and 46 (movable property), Section 50 (property in a bank or other financial institution), Section 51 (land) and Section 52 (a business) |
Who issues it | An enforcement agency, such as the police or the MACC | An investigating officer, or the Public Prosecutor for property in financial institutions and land |
Basis | An investigation has started and there are reasonable grounds to suspect a money laundering offence, or that the property is proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence | Broadly, that the property is the subject matter or evidence of an offence, proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence |
Effect | The property cannot be dealt with. The order may also stop the person from sending money out of Malaysia and require them to surrender travel documents | The property is taken into the authorities’ control, or the bank is directed not to release it. Any dealing with seized property is void under Section 54 |
Time limit | 90 days unless the person is charged (Section 44(5)) | 12 months from the seizure order, or 18 months from an earlier freezing order, unless a charge or prosecution is brought (Section 52A) |
“Frozen” may really mean “seized” A common pattern in the cases is that an account is first frozen by an enforcement agency under Section 44, and then, before the 90 days run out, the Public Prosecutor issues an order under Section 50 directing the bank not to release the money. The bank may still describe the account as “frozen”, but in law it is now seized, and the longer seizure time limit applies. It is important to ask for copies of every order and to check which provision each was issued under, because the answer decides which clock is running. |
The Clocks at a Glance
The table below sets out the main time limits in Part VI of AMLA, based on the current wording of the Act as reproduced in the BIG AMLA BOOK.
Order or step | Time limit | What stops or changes it |
|---|---|---|
Freezing order (Section 44(5)) | Ceases after 90 days from the date of the order. A shorter period may be stated in the order | The person named is charged with an offence under AMLA or a terrorism financing offence |
Seizure order (Section 52A) | Ceases after 12 months from the date of the seizure order, or 18 months from the date of an earlier freezing order | The person is charged with an offence under AMLA, or a prosecution under AMLA is started with regard to the seized property |
Forfeiture without prosecution (Section 56(1)) | Where there is no prosecution, the Public Prosecutor must apply before 18 months from the seizure order, or 18 months from the freezing order if there was one. Where there is no conviction, within 3 months of the date of no conviction | A forfeiture application filed in time |
Release if no forfeiture application (Section 56(3)) | Seized property in respect of which no application is made must be released to the person from whom it was seized at the end of 18 months from the seizure | Not applicable. Release is mandatory |
Order over property outside Malaysia (Section 53) | Ceases after 18 months from the date of the High Court order | A charge or prosecution in time. Unlike the other orders, the High Court may extend this one by up to 12 months on the Public Prosecutor’s application made before it expires |
A note on the older cases Section 52A was added to AMLA with effect from 1 September 2014. The cases discussed in this article were decided under the wording in force at the time, which gave a 12-month limit counted from either the seizure order or the earlier freezing order, and a 12-month window for forfeiture applications. The current wording, as reproduced in the BIG AMLA BOOK, allows 18 months where a freezing order came first. The principles the courts laid down, such as automatic expiry and the meaning of “charged”, remain relevant, but the exact number of months must always be checked against the version of the Act that applies to the order in question. |
What Counts as Being “Charged”?
Because the clock stops when the person is “charged”, the meaning of that word has been fought over in court. AMLA does not define it, and Section 93 provides that no prosecution under AMLA can be started without the Public Prosecutor’s written consent. The question is whether a person is charged when that consent is given, when the court receives it, when an arrest warrant is issued, or only when the charge is read out in court.
Case Spotlight: Hazrin Izzuddin bin Jamaluddin & Ors v Pendakwa Raya [2019] 5 MLJ 545 (Court of Appeal) Facts: The case arose from an alleged weakness in a bank’s debit card fund transfer system. The investigating officer’s evidence was that account holders had made transfers during a half-hour window when the system was offline, resulting in double credits, and the bank claimed losses of about RM36.9 million. In February 2015, the police froze the accounts of 31 people under Section 44. In March 2015, some of their vehicles were seized, and in April 2015, the Public Prosecutor directed the banks under Section 50 not to release the frozen accounts. The dispute: In February 2016, the account holders’ lawyers wrote to the Attorney General’s Chambers asking for the property to be released because the 12-month period had passed. The Chambers refused, saying the Public Prosecutor had applied for arrest warrants. The Public Prosecutor had given written consent to prosecute some of them on 28 January 2016, and the court issued arrest warrants between 29 January and 1 February 2016, just within 12 months of the first freezing orders. Decision: The Court of Appeal held that consent to prosecute is a “complaint” under the Criminal Procedure Code, and that a person is “charged” for the purposes of Section 52A when the prosecution is started, which is when the court takes cognisance of the offence by receiving the consent. For those appellants, the orders stayed in force. The court also held that Section 56(1) allowed the property of the other appellants, for whom no consent had been issued, to remain seized even after 12 months. What happened next: Some of the appellants for whom no consent had been issued appealed further. As explained below, the Federal Court agreed with the Court of Appeal on the meaning of “charged” but reversed its view that the property could simply remain seized. |
Case Spotlight: Raqeem Rizqin Enterprise & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara & Anor [2019] MLJU 621 / [2019] 8 CLJ 41 (Federal Court) Facts: This was the further appeal by four of the account holders from the same investigation. Their bank accounts, including savings with Lembaga Tabung Haji, and their vehicles had been frozen or seized since early 2015. They were never charged, and the Public Prosecutor never applied for forfeiture. Decision: A five-member Federal Court unanimously allowed the appeal and ordered the release of the property. The court held that Section 52A is clear and mandatory. It agreed that a person is “charged” once the court takes cognisance of the offence, but found that for these appellants, no arrest warrant had been applied for and no consent to prosecute had been issued. They had therefore not been charged within 12 months, and the orders had lapsed. No excuses for delay: The court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s view that Section 56(1) allowed the property to stay seized. It held that the Court of Appeal’s remark that the appellants had taken advantage of the bank’s system was not based on any evidence. It also held that the heavy workload of investigators and prosecutors is not something a court can take judicial notice of, and cannot be used to set aside a mandatory time limit. The authorities had not given any explanation for the delay. Right to be heard: The court held that continuing to hold the property without a forfeiture application left the owners with no way to show why it should not be forfeited. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Totti Trading v Public Prosecutor, it held that this breached the rules of natural justice, which form part of the “law” under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. |
Case Spotlight: Md Nawi bin Ab Aziz v Pendakwa Raya [2024] MLJU 1812 (High Court) Facts: The applicant’s ASB, ASB2 and ASN unit trust accounts and a bank account were seized under Section 50 on 7 February 2020. An arrest warrant was issued on 17 November 2020, but he was only charged in the Sessions Court on 21 March 2021, 42 days after the 12 months ran out. No forfeiture application was made. The prosecution’s arguments: The prosecution argued that the arrest warrant, obtained within 12 months, had stopped the clock, and that the Covid-19 pandemic had delayed the filing of new charges. It also argued that Section 54(3), which bars civil claims over seized property, prevented the application. Decision: The High Court allowed the application and ordered the accounts to be released. It held that an arrest warrant does not amount to a charge under Section 52A, and that the prosecution had not produced the written consent to prosecute. The continued holding of the accounts was unlawful. The court stressed that the Act requires strict compliance to prevent abuse of power, and noted that the applicant’s right to his property is protected by Article 13. The judgment records that the prosecution filed an appeal. |
Case Spotlight: CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd v Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Ors [2025] 5 MLRH 249 (High Court) As summarised in the BIG AMLA BOOK, this case involved a seizure order over property of a political party registered under the Societies Act 1966. Because a society cannot be charged in its own name, the High Court held that charging an office bearer, such as its President, in an official capacity within the time limit was enough to satisfy Section 52A. The seizure order therefore did not lapse. |
What this means in practice The Federal Court has indicated that a person is charged once the court takes cognisance of the offence, and that the consent to prosecute is an essential step. The High Court in Md Nawi took a stricter line, holding that an arrest warrant alone is not enough. What is clear from all the cases is that the prosecution must take real, documented steps towards a charge within the time limit. An account holder should ask for evidence of the date of any consent to prosecute, and of when the court received it. The current wording of Section 52A also stops the clock where a prosecution under AMLA has been started with regard to the seized property, even if the person named in the order is not the one charged. The BIG AMLA BOOK notes that this limb focuses on the link between the property and the offence, and that courts may look closely at any charge brought only to avoid the deadline. |
When the Clock Runs Out
The courts have been consistent that once the time limit passes without a charge, the order simply ends. In the words used by the High Court in a 2026 case summarised below, release happens by operation of law, not by judicial order.
Case Spotlight: Lim Hui Jin v CIMB Bank Bhd & Ors [2018] MLJU 981 / [2018] 8 CLJ 327 (Court of Appeal) Facts: The appellant’s CIMB account was frozen by the police on 24 June 2014. On 11 September 2014, ten days after Section 52A came into force, the Public Prosecutor issued a Section 50 seizure order on the account. The basis was that the money was the subject matter of money laundering offences allegedly committed by his mother, who was later charged with 21 counts of money laundering. The appellant himself was never charged. The High Court dismissed his application for the release of the money. The authorities’ arguments: They argued that the seizure order stayed valid until the Public Prosecutor varied or revoked it, that the account was the subject matter of the mother’s case, and that Section 54(3) barred any civil proceedings. The bank said it had been advised to keep holding the money until the mother’s case was over, and it faced heavy penalties if it released the funds without authority. Decision: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered the money released. It worked out that the seizure order had lapsed on 23 June 2015 (12 months after the freezing order) or at the latest on 10 September 2015 (12 months after the seizure order). It also noted that the freezing order itself had ceased to have effect after 90 days, on 21 September 2014. Key points: Once an order has expired, there is nothing left for the Public Prosecutor to vary or revoke, and holding otherwise would breach Article 13. Section 54(3) only bars civil claims “for so long as” a seizure remains in force, so it no longer applied. The fact that the mother was being prosecuted made no difference because the orders related to the son’s account, not hers. The court also held that the prosecution could not get around the time limits by seeking forfeiture of the son’s money in the mother’s criminal case, as that would make Section 52A and Section 56(3) pointless. |
Lim Hui Jin was decided under the earlier wording of Section 52A, which only referred to the person against whom the order was made being charged. As noted above, the current wording also stops the clock where a prosecution has been started with regard to the seized property. It is therefore possible that a similar case today could be argued differently, and family members whose accounts are caught up in a relative’s case should seek advice on the version of the Act that applies.
Date | What happened in Lim Hui Jin |
|---|---|
24 June 2014 | Account frozen by the police under Section 44 |
1 September 2014 | Section 52A comes into force |
11 September 2014 | Public Prosecutor issues Section 50 seizure order |
21 September 2014 | The freezing order’s own 90 days end |
23 June 2015 | 12 months from the freezing order. Seizure order lapses |
10 September 2015 | 12 months from the seizure order. The latest possible expiry date |
5 May 2016 | Account still held. Son files his application in the High Court |
31 July 2018 | Court of Appeal orders release of the account |
Case Spotlight: PP v Siti Rohaya Mokhtar & Ors [2026] MLRHU 11 (High Court) As summarised in the BIG AMLA BOOK, the Public Prosecutor applied for a stay of execution of an order that had struck out its forfeiture application. The High Court refused. It held that release of the property on the expiry of the time limit under Section 52A happens by operation of law, and that granting a stay would in effect extend a statutory time limit without any legal basis, contrary to Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. |
Release must go to the right person
Section 56(3) requires the property to be released to the person from whom it was seized. The BIG AMLA BOOK notes that the Court of Appeal in Rosalind Tan Kheng Suan v Peguam Negara Malaysia & Ors [2026] 1 MLRA 877 held that the Public Prosecutor’s general power to release seized property under Section 60(1) cannot be used to get around Section 56(3) by handing the money to a third party instead. Where ownership is genuinely disputed, the book explains, the property should go back to the person from whom it was taken, and rival claimants should resolve the matter in a civil court.
The Forfeiture Deadline
Section 56 allows the Public Prosecutor to ask the High Court to forfeit seized property even where no one has been prosecuted. This is a powerful tool, but it comes with its own deadline, and the courts have treated it just as strictly.
Case Spotlight: PP v Dragcom Sdn Bhd & Ors and other applications [2013] 5 MLJ 594 (High Court) As quoted by the High Court in Md Nawi, the court in this case held that the time limit for the Public Prosecutor to apply for forfeiture is mandatory, not merely a guide. The court explained that the time limit is a safeguard against arbitrary use of the wide powers given to the enforcement authorities, and that without it, owners would be left waiting on the prosecution’s pleasure. In the three applications before it, the period had run out on 18 August 2012. The court held that the Public Prosecutor was obliged to return the property on that date, that an application filed afterwards was not competent, and that the court had no power to hear it. |
Case Spotlight: Public Prosecutor v Thong Kian Oon & Ors [2012] 10 MLJ 140 (High Court) Facts: Cash, bank balances and bankers’ cheques belonging to five people were seized in 2010 and 2011 on the basis that they were linked to illegal public lottery. None of them was charged with any offence. The Public Prosecutor applied for forfeiture under Section 56 within the time limit. Decision: The High Court dismissed the application and ordered the property to be released immediately. The prosecution’s affidavits did not make clear which offence it was relying on, and part of its case rested on an order under the Emergency Ordinance that was not a serious offence under AMLA. There was not enough evidence linking the property to any crime. The court stressed that because forfeiture takes away property rights, the provisions must be strictly followed, and the freezing, seizure and forfeiture must be carried out in accordance with law under Article 13. Lesson: Filing in time is only the first hurdle. The prosecution must still prove its case with proper evidence. |
When the Time Limit Does Not Help
The time limits are not a guaranteed route to getting property back. Two situations stand out in the cases.
Orders made before 1 September 2014
Case Spotlight: Tan Hoo Eng v Public Prosecutor [2018] MLJU 1880 (High Court) Facts: This case involved the mother in Lim Hui Jin. Her own CIMB accounts were frozen on 30 April and 15 May 2014, and seized under Section 50 on 24 July 2014, all before Section 52A came into force. She was charged in July 2015 with criminal breach of trust and money laundering offences. In October 2017, she was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and re-charged on the same day. She applied for, among other things, the seizure order to be revoked, relying on her son’s successful appeal. Decision: The High Court dismissed the application. It held that Section 52A does not apply retrospectively to orders made before it came into force. It explained that the Court of Appeal in Lim Hui Jin had only allowed the 12-month period to be counted from an earlier freezing order where the seizure order itself was made after 1 September 2014. It did not extend Section 52A to cases where both the freezing and seizure orders came before that date. In any event, unlike her son, she had been charged. |
The BIG AMLA BOOK notes that the Court of Appeal in Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Ten Jing Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 5 MLRA 534 reaffirmed that Section 52A does not operate retrospectively on seizure orders issued before 2014.
Once you are charged
If the person is charged in time, the investigative clock stops, and what happens to the property is decided within the criminal case. The court trying the case can order forfeiture under Section 55 if the statutory requirements are met. At that stage, the arguments shift from time limits to whether the property is truly linked to the offence.
A Word for Banks and Companies
Financial institutions are caught in the middle. A bank that releases money in breach of a Section 50 order commits an offence punishable by a heavy fine or imprisonment. In Lim Hui Jin, the Court of Appeal described the bank’s caution as understandable given these penalties, even though it held that the orders had expired. The BIG AMLA BOOK notes that in Hong Leong Bank v Ten Jing Enterprise, the Court of Appeal held that a bank breaches its duty under Section 50(1) if it releases seized money to a third party, such as a liquidator, without the Public Prosecutor first varying or revoking the order, even where the release is said to follow a winding-up order.
For banks and companies holding property on the authorities’ instructions, the practical lesson is to keep a record of the date of every order, diarise the expiry dates, and seek written confirmation from the Public Prosecutor on the status of an order before either releasing or continuing to hold the property.
Arguments That Have Failed in Court
Argument for keeping the property | How the court responded |
|---|---|
“The seizure order stays valid until the Public Prosecutor revokes it” | Rejected in Lim Hui Jin. Once the order has lapsed, there is nothing left to vary or revoke |
“Section 54(3) bars any civil claim over seized property” | Rejected in Lim Hui Jin, Raqeem Rizqin and Md Nawi. The bar only applies while a seizure is still in force |
“A family member has been charged over the same money” | Rejected in Lim Hui Jin under the earlier wording, because the order related to the son’s account and he was never charged |
“An arrest warrant was obtained in time” | Rejected in Md Nawi, where no consent to prosecute was produced and the charge came 42 days late |
“The investigation is complex and prosecutors are overloaded” | Rejected by the Federal Court in Raqeem Rizqin. Workload is not a matter for judicial notice and cannot override a mandatory time limit |
“The Covid-19 pandemic caused delay” | Rejected in Md Nawi |
“The property can remain seized under Section 56(1) without a forfeiture application” | Rejected by the Federal Court in Raqeem Rizqin |
“The release should be stayed pending appeal” | Rejected in Siti Rohaya Mokhtar, as summarised in the BIG AMLA BOOK. A stay would extend a statutory time limit |
Options Before the Deadline
Waiting for an order to expire is not the only option. AMLA provides some routes to recover property earlier.
- Variation or revocation of a freezing order (Section 44A): The person named in a freezing order may apply in writing to an officer of higher rank than the one who issued it, giving reasons. The application may be refused if the officer suspects the property is linked to an offence. Section 44(3) also allows directions for the proper administration of frozen property and for payment of the costs of defending criminal proceedings.
- Release of seized property (Section 60): An investigating officer other than the one who carried out the seizure may, with the Public Prosecutor’s involvement, release seized property to the person lawfully entitled to it if satisfied that it is not liable to forfeiture and is not needed for any proceedings.
- Showing cause as a third party (Section 61): Where forfeiture proceedings are started, people with an interest in the property may be called to show cause why it should not be forfeited. This was covered in an earlier article in this series.
Once an order has lapsed, the cases show two ways of going to court if the authorities will not release the property. The account holders in Raqeem Rizqin and Md Nawi applied by notice of motion in the High Court, while the appellant in Lim Hui Jin filed an originating summons against the bank and the authorities. In each case, a written request to the Attorney General’s Chambers or the enforcement agency came first.
Practical Checklist
- Get copies of every order, and check whether each is a freezing order under Section 44 or a seizure order under Section 45, 50, 51 or 52.
- Write down the date of each order and work out the 90-day, 12-month and 18-month dates. Check which version of the Act applies to the order.
- Find out whether you, or anyone else, has been charged with an AMLA offence relating to the property, and when.
- Ask for the date of any consent to prosecute and of any court step, such as an arrest warrant or the reading of a charge.
- Check whether a forfeiture application under Section 56 has been filed, and when.
- Once a deadline has passed, write to the enforcement agency and the Attorney General’s Chambers asking for release, and keep a copy of the reply.
- If release is refused, seek legal advice promptly on applying to the High Court.
- Before a deadline, consider applying for variation or release under Section 44A or Section 60, for example to meet living expenses or legal fees.
- Banks and companies: diarise expiry dates and get written confirmation from the Public Prosecutor before releasing or continuing to hold property.
Conclusion
AMLA gives the authorities strong powers to freeze and seize property quickly, often before anyone has been charged. But those powers are temporary by design. The time limits in Sections 44(5), 52A and 56 are, as the Federal Court put it, clear and mandatory. They force the authorities to decide, within a fixed period, whether to charge, to seek forfeiture, or to let the property go.
For people whose accounts are stuck, the cases offer real hope, but also a caution. The time limits do not help where the orders were made before September 2014, or where a charge or prosecution was brought in time, and the exact deadlines depend on the version of the Act that applies. Knowing the dates, asking the right questions and acting promptly once a deadline has passed can make the difference between waiting indefinitely and getting your property back.
Related Articles
Settling Instead of Being Charged: How Compounding Works for Money Laundering Offences
Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust or Money Laundering? How One Police Report Becomes Three Charges
Acquitted of Cheating, but Still Lose the Money?
My Business Account Was Frozen Because of a Customer’s Scam
Scammed, and the Money Is Frozen in Someone Else’s Account: Can Victims Get It Back?
How Dirty Money Is Cleaned: Placement, Layering, Integration and the Red Flags
How Long Can the Authorities Hold My Assets? Time Limits on Seizure Orders
Bribe First, Launder Later: How Corruption Cases Become Money Laundering Cases
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Advisory
