Law Chambers of Zander Lim

09/04/2026

𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐀𝐂𝐂’𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐌𝐋𝐀 (𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭) 𝐀𝐜𝐭 2025

The recent amendments to the 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001 mark a significant shift in the scope of enforcement powers.

Under the 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001, enforcement agencies, including MACC, are empowered to investigate, freeze, seize, and pursue prosecution under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 4(1), as well as forfeiture proceedings under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 56(1), where property is linked to proceeds of unlawful activity.

Importantly, the definition of “unlawful activity” remains unchanged. It continues to refer to conduct involving a “serious offence” or a “foreign serious offence” under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 3.

The real shift lies in what now qualifies as a “serious offence”.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Previously, a “serious offence” was limited to: -

☑️ offences listed in the Second Schedule;
☑️ attempts to commit those offences;
☑️ abetment of those offences

This meant AMLA powers were confined to a closed list of predicate offences. The distinction between “unlawful activity” and “serious offence” was discussed by the Federal Court in 𝑱𝑱 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑮𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒔 𝑬𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆 & 𝑶𝒓𝒔 𝒗 𝑷𝑷 [2025] 7 𝑪𝑳𝑱 378.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 1 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 2026)

The definition has now been significantly expanded.

A “serious offence” now includes: -

(aa) any offence under federal law punishable with imprisonment of one year or more.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬?

This seemingly simple change has far-reaching consequences.

It effectively transforms AMLA from a regime tied to a specific list of predicate offences into one of general application.

Offences that were previously outside the AMLA framework may now fall within its scope. In principle, even provisions such as: -

☑️ 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 166 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒅𝒆 (public servant disobeying the law with intent to cause injury);
☑️ 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 265 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒅𝒆 (fraudulent use of false weights or measures)

may now constitute a “serious offence”, and therefore an “unlawful activity”.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭

This expansion means: -

☑️ Wider investigative jurisdiction;
☑️ Increased exposure to account freezing and asset seizure;
☑️ Broader basis for prosecution and forfeiture.

In short, AMLA is no longer confined to traditional “white-collar crime” categories.

The risk landscape has widened.

𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐀𝐂𝐂’𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐌𝐋𝐀 (𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭) 𝐀𝐜𝐭 2025

The recent amendments to the 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001 mark a significant shift in the scope of enforcement powers.

Under the 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001, enforcement agencies, including MACC, are empowered to investigate, freeze, seize, and pursue prosecution under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 4(1), as well as forfeiture proceedings under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 56(1), where property is linked to proceeds of unlawful activity.

Importantly, the definition of “unlawful activity” remains unchanged. It continues to refer to conduct involving a “serious offence” or a “foreign serious offence” under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 3.

The real shift lies in what now qualifies as a “serious offence”.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Previously, a “serious offence” was limited to: -

☑️ offences listed in the Second Schedule;
☑️ attempts to commit those offences;
☑️ abetment of those offences

This meant AMLA powers were confined to a closed list of predicate offences. The distinction between “unlawful activity” and “serious offence” was discussed by the Federal Court in 𝑱𝑱 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑮𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒔 𝑬𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆 & 𝑶𝒓𝒔 𝒗 𝑷𝑷 [2025] 7 𝑪𝑳𝑱 378.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 1 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 2026)

The definition has now been significantly expanded.

A “serious offence” now includes: -

(aa) any offence under federal law punishable with imprisonment of one year or more.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬?

This seemingly simple change has far-reaching consequences.

It effectively transforms AMLA from a regime tied to a specific list of predicate offences into one of general application.

Offences that were previously outside the AMLA framework may now fall within its scope. In principle, even provisions such as: -

☑️ 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 166 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒅𝒆 (public servant disobeying the law with intent to cause injury);
☑️ 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 265 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒅𝒆 (fraudulent use of false weights or measures)

may now constitute a “serious offence”, and therefore an “unlawful activity”.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭

This expansion means: -

☑️ Wider investigative jurisdiction;
☑️ Increased exposure to account freezing and asset seizure;
☑️ Broader basis for prosecution and forfeiture.

In short, AMLA is no longer confined to traditional “white-collar crime” categories.

The risk landscape has widened.

01/04/2026

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 / 𝐒𝐞𝐢𝐳𝐮𝐫𝐞 / 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐌𝐋𝐀 (𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭) 𝐀𝐜𝐭 2025: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 18-𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲?

The recent amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering, 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑼𝒏𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001 ("AMLA Act 2001") raise an important question: -

When do the new provisions on seizure duration actually apply?

At the outset, it is trite that the right to property is constitutionally protected under 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 13 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. This right can only be lawfully taken away through due process of law.

This position was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in 𝑹𝒐𝒔𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝑻𝒂𝒏 𝑲𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒖𝒂𝒏 𝒗 𝑷𝒆𝒈𝒖𝒂𝒎 𝑵𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒓𝒂 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒂 & 𝑶𝒓𝒔 [2025] 9 𝑪𝑳𝑱 440, where the Court emphasised that enforcement agencies and the Public Prosecutor do not have the power to permanently deprive a person of property absent a lawful process such as prosecution or forfeiture.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Under the previous 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 52𝑨 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001: -

☑️ A seizure order would lapse after 12 months;
☑️ If there was a prior freezing order, time runs from the date of freezing, not seizure.

If no prosecution or forfeiture is initiated within that period, the property must be returned to the person from whom it was seized.

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 1 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 2026)

The amendment to 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 52𝑨 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001 extends the duration: -

From 12 months ➡️ 18 months

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Does this extended period apply to all ongoing investigations?

Answer: No.

𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

By virtue of the saving provision: -

☑️ The applicable law depends on when the offence was committed;
☑️ NOT when the investigation, seizure, or prosecution begins.

𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞

Alleged offence: January 2026
Amendment comes into force: 1 March 2026
Investigation begins: April 2026
Seizure occurs: May 2026
Charges filed: June 2026

☑️ The case will still be governed by the pre-amendment law;
☑️ The 12-month limit continues to apply.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬?

This is not merely procedural. It directly affects: -

☑️ The validity of continued seizure
☑️ The timeline for enforcement agencies
☑️ The right of recovery of property

If the statutory period lapses without proper legal action, the property must be returned.

The trigger for the application of the AMLA (Amendment) Act 2025 is the date of the alleged offence, not the date of investigation or seizure.

12/03/2026

𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐧 𝐍𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐚𝐧𝐩𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧: 𝐒𝐞𝐣𝐚𝐮𝐡 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐣𝐚𝐲𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐤𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐤?

Di bawah 𝐬𝐞𝐤𝐬𝐲𝐞𝐧 58(1) 𝐀𝐤𝐭𝐚 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐤𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 2007, adalah menjadi suatu kesalahan bagi mana-mana individu untuk menjalankan perniagaan dalam mana-mana aktiviti terkawal, atau memperlihatkan dirinya sebagai menjalankan aktiviti tersebut, melainkan individu tersebut memiliki Lesen Perkhidmatan Pasaran Modal atau merupakan seorang yang berdaftar di bawah 𝐬𝐞𝐤𝐬𝐲𝐞𝐧 76(1).

“Nasihat pelaburan” merupakan suatu aktiviti terkawal di bawah 𝐉𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 2 𝐀𝐤𝐭𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭.

Apabila disabitkan kesalahan, seseorang boleh dikenakan denda tidak melebihi RM10 juta, pemenjaraan bagi tempoh tidak melebihi 10 tahun, atau kedua-duanya sekali.

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia (“SC”) mempunyai kuasa penyiasatan dan penguatkuasaan yang luas sekiranya terdapat syak bahawa Akta tersebut telah dilanggar.

Suruhanjaya boleh, antara lain, mengambil tindakan berikut: -

✔️ Mengambil tindakan pentadbiran termasuk teguran, arahan untuk mematuhi, serta penalti kewangan sehingga RM500,000 (seksyen 354);
✔️ Menggantung atau mengarahkan pemberhentian aktiviti terkawal (seksyen 355);
✔️ Mengkompaun kesalahan tersebut dengan persetujuan Pendakwa Raya, tidak melebihi denda maksimum RM10 juta (seksyen 373); atau
✔️ Mendakwa individu atau syarikat tersebut di Mahkamah.

Sekiranya kesalahan dilakukan oleh sesebuah syarikat, 𝐬𝐞𝐤𝐬𝐲𝐞𝐧 376(1) memperuntukkan bahawa mana-mana pengarah, ketua pegawai eksekutif, pegawai atau individu yang terlibat dalam pengurusan syarikat boleh dianggap telah melakukan kesalahan tersebut melainkan beliau dapat membuktikan bahawa kesalahan itu dilakukan tanpa pengetahuan atau persetujuannya serta beliau telah menjalankan segala usaha wajar untuk mencegah berlakunya kesalahan tersebut.

Peruntukan andaian ini beroperasi secara konsep yang hampir sama dengan 𝐬𝐞𝐤𝐬𝐲𝐞𝐧 17𝐀(3) 𝐀𝐤𝐭𝐚 𝐒𝐏𝐑𝐌 2009, di mana liabiliti boleh meluas kepada individu yang memegang jawatan kawalan melainkan langkah perlindungan atau usaha wajar yang mencukupi dapat dibuktikan.

Dalam amalan, sesuatu perkara sering menjadi lebih serius bukan kerana ia tidak boleh diperbaiki, tetapi kerana tindak balas awal adalah lewat atau tidak tersusun.

Dalam perkara berkaitan pengawalseliaan, masa menentukan hala tuju kes tersebut. SC mempunyai budi bicara sama ada untuk menyelesaikan perkara secara pentadbiran atau meningkatkan tindakan kepada pendakwaan jenayah di Mahkamah.

Perbezaannya sering bergantung kepada sejauh mana perkara tersebut ditangani dengan cepat, strategik dan tersusun sejak awal.

Sekiranya syarikat atau lembaga pengarah anda sedang berhadapan dengan penelitian di bawah bidang kuasa SC, penglibatan awal yang tersusun memastikan setiap tindak balas yang diberikan adalah jelas, tepat dan selaras dengan kewajipan undang-undang.

Bagi sesiapa yang berminat, Nota Panduan Mengenai Penyediaan Nasihat Pelaburan boleh dirujuk melalui pautan berikut: https://www.sc.com.my/api/documentms/download.ashx?id=d22c8909-06e8-40bf-a8da-4fc31b4606c0

==================

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐋𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐅𝐚𝐫 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐨?

Under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 58(1) 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒆𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2007, it is an offence to carry on a business in any regulated activity, or to hold oneself out as doing so, unless the person holds a Capital Markets Services Licence or is a registered person under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 76(1).

“Investment advice” is a regulated activity under 𝑺𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒍𝒆 2 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒄𝒕.

Upon conviction, a person is liable to a fine 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐌10 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

The Securities Commission of Malaysia (“SC”) has wide investigative and enforcement powers where it suspects a breach of the Act.

The Commission may take the following actions: -

✔️ Take administrative action, including reprimand, directions to comply, and monetary penalties of up to RM500,000 (𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 354);
✔️ Suspend or direct the cessation of regulated activities (𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 355);
✔️ Compound the offence with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, not exceeding the maximum fine of RM10 million (𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 373); or
✔️ Charge the individual or corporation in Court.

Where an offence is committed by a corporation, 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 376(1) provides that any director, chief executive officer, officer or person concerned in the management of the corporation may be deemed to have committed the offence unless he proves that it was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence as ought to have been exercised to prevent its commission.

This deeming provision operates in a manner conceptually similar to 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 17𝑨(3) 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝑨𝑪𝑪 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009, where liability may extend to persons in positions of control unless adequate safeguards or due diligence can be demonstrated.

In practice, matters escalate not because they are irreparable, but because the initial response is delayed or unstructured.

In regulatory matters, timing determines trajectory. The SC has discretion to resolve matters administratively or escalate them into criminal prosecution. The distinction often turns on how promptly, strategically, and cohesively the matter is managed from the outset.

If your company or board is facing scrutiny under the SC’s purview, early and properly structured engagement ensures that responses are clear, accurate, and aligned with legal obligations.

For those interested, the Guidance Note on Provision of Investment Advice issued by the Securities Commission Malaysia can be accessed at the following link: https://www.sc.com.my/api/documentms/download.ashx?id=d22c8909-06e8-40bf-a8da-4fc31b4606c0

06/03/2026

𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐢-𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐢 𝐊𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐤𝐚 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐲𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐚𝐧 𝐊𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐏𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐤 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐤𝐮𝐚𝐬𝐚

Di bawah 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 32 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒂 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒃𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒈 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒎, 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝑷𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒂𝒚𝒂𝒂𝒏 𝑲𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒔𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒂𝒏 𝑯𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒍 𝑫𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒅𝒂 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒊 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒎 2001 (“Akta AMLA 2001”), 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 30 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒖𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒋𝒂𝒚𝒂 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒂𝒉 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒂 2009 (“Akta SPRM 2009”), serta 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 112 𝑲𝒂𝒏𝒖𝒏 𝑻𝒂𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒂 𝑱𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒚𝒂𝒉, pihak berkuasa seperti SPRM, Bank Negara Malaysia dan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia mempunyai kuasa untuk memerintahkan mana-mana individu memberikan apa-apa maklumat yang dikehendakinya semasa proses siasatan.

Perkara ini amat penting terutamanya dalam penyiasatan di bawah Akta AMLA 2001, di mana undang-undang kerahsiaan perbankan, peraturan kerahsiaan syarikat atau klausa kerahsiaan kontrak tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk menolak pendedahan maklumat. Ini jelas dinyatakan di bawah 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 32(1) 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒂 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 2001.

Sama ada pernyataan tersebut diberikan sebagai suspek atau saksi, pernyataan bertulis yang direkodkan oleh pihak berkuasa boleh kemudiannya digunakan dan diterima sebagai keterangan dalam prosiding pelucuthakan harta di bawah𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 40 𝒅𝒂𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 71 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒂 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 2001. Peruntukan yang serupa juga terdapat di bawah 𝒔𝒆𝒌𝒔𝒚𝒆𝒏 41𝑨 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒂 𝑺𝑷𝑹𝑴 2009.

Dalam praktiknya, pernyataan tersebut boleh digunakan oleh pihak berkuasa dalam prosiding pelucuthakan untuk merampas wang dalam akaun bank serta harta alih dan harta tak alih yang didakwa diperoleh daripada aktiviti haram, tanpa mengira sama ada pernyataan tersebut diberikan dalam kapasiti sebagai saksi atau suspek.

Pada tahun lalu, saya berpeluang mengendalikan dalam dua kes prosiding pelucuthakan di Mahkamah Rayuan di mana isu yang sama timbul di bawah Akta AMLA 2001 dan Akta SPRM 2009, khususnya sama ada pernyataan yang direkodkan daripada suspek ("tertuduh") atau saksi boleh digunakan dalam prosiding pelucuthakan.

Dalam kedua-dua kes tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan pernyataan tersebut diterima dan digunakan sebagai keterangan untuk menyokong pelucuthakan aset yang disita, tetapi tiada alasan penghakiman secara bertulis.

Baru-baru ini, isu tersebut sekali lagi dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes 𝑲𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒓𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒂𝒉 𝒗 𝑷𝑷 [2026] 1 𝑪𝑳𝑱 527, yang memutuskan bahawa kebolehterimaan pernyataan bertulis di bawah peruntukan statutori yang berkaitan.

Walau bagaimanapun, kebolehterimaan pernyataan tersebut serta implikasi perlembagaannya dalam konteks perbicaraan jenayah masih belum diuji sepenuhnya.

==================

𝐁𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬

Under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 32 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑳𝒂𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑼𝒏𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001 ("AMLA Act 2001"), 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 30 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009 ("MACC Act 2009"), and 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 112 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒅𝒆, authorities such as the MACC, the Police, and the Securities Commission Malaysia have the power to compel any person to furnish a written statement in the course of an investigation.

This is particularly significant in investigations under the AMLA Act 2001, where banking secrecy laws, company confidentiality rules, or contractual confidentiality clauses cannot be relied upon as a basis to refuse disclosure. This position is expressly provided under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 32(1) 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001.

Whether the statement is given as a suspect or as a witness, the written statement recorded by the authorities may later be used and admitted as evidence in forfeiture proceedings under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 40 𝒂𝒏𝒅 71 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝑴𝑳𝑨 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001. A similar provision exists under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 41𝑨 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝑨𝑪𝑪 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009

In practical terms, such statements may be relied upon by the authorities in forfeiture proceedings to seize monies in bank accounts, as well as movable and immovable properties alleged to be derived from unlawful activities, 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭.

Last year, I had the privilege of appearing in the Court of Appeal on two occasions involving forfeiture proceedings where a similar issue arose under both the AMLA Act 2001 and the MACC Act 2009, particularly on whether statements recorded from suspects or witnesses could be relied upon in forfeiture proceedings. In those matters, the Court permitted the statements to be admitted and relied upon as evidence to support the forfeiture of seized assets, although no written grounds were issued.

More recently, the issue was considered again by the Court of Appeal in 𝑲𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒓𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒂𝒉 𝒗 𝑷𝑷 [2026] 1 𝑪𝑳𝑱 527, which further affirmed the admissibility of written statements under the relevant statutory provisions.

That said, the admissibility of such statements and their constitutional implications in a criminal trial context have yet to be fully tested.

27/02/2026

𝐌𝐀𝐂𝐂 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠

Raids rarely come with notice.

The first 24 hours often determine everything that follows.

From my experience as a former prosecutor, I have seen how early decisions shape not only legal outcomes, but also reputational and commercial consequences.

When the MACC conducts a raid at your office or premises, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: -

1️⃣ Verify the MACC’s written authorisation before entry and understand the precise scope of the investigation.

2️⃣ Ensure employees understand their legal rights and obligations, particularly where legal privilege or confidential communications may arise.

3️⃣ Ensure that only relevant materials within the authorised scope are seized.

4️⃣ Ensure that a clear record and a copy of the seizure list are obtained in accordance with 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 33(3) 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝑨𝑪𝑪 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009.

5️⃣ Remain composed and obtain strategic legal advice at the earliest opportunity, even if you believe it may not be necessary at the time.

Regulatory investigations are not merely legal events. They are board level crises where directors and senior management may face criminal exposure, financial liability, and lasting reputational consequences.

In such moments, preparation and measured strategy make the greatest difference.

Further details are available at my firm’s website: https://lawchambersofzanderlim.com/

Boutique KL law firm for commercial crime, corruption, money laundering, compliance advisory and appellate litigation in Malaysia.

24/02/2026

𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫. 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞.

Law Chambers of Zander Lim is a boutique practice specialising in commercial and white-collar crime, and based at Wisma UOA Damansara.

The firm is led by a former Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and defence counsel, with a focused practice in matters arising under the 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009, the 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑳𝒂𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑼𝒏𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2001, as well as financial crime within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Securities Commission and Bank Negara Malaysia.

Our work is grounded in a practical understanding of how complex commercial crime matters are investigated, charged, prosecuted, and defended. We provide strategic, measured, and discreet legal representation to individuals, corporates, boards, and senior management in relation to: -

✔️ White-collar criminal defence, including AMLA matters and corporate liability;
✔️ Regulatory and enforcement investigations;
✔️ High-risk and sensitive advisory engagements;
✔️ Advisory, design, and implementation of proper and adequate procedures under 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 17𝑨 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒕 2009.

We look forward to connecting with clients, colleagues, and decision-makers.

Further details of our legal services are available at:

Boutique KL law firm for commercial crime, corruption, money laundering, compliance advisory and appellate litigation in Malaysia.