Aussie cops cite money laundering suspicion in CID chief's case

The Australian Police Force (AFP) said the seizure of A$320,000 (RM985,000) belonging to Bukit Aman CID chief Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Mohd was based on the suspicion that the country's anti-money laundering law had been violated.

The comment was in response to Malaysiakini seeking feedback from the Australian police on Malaysian inspector-general of police Mohamad Fuzi Harun claiming that his Australian counterpart had cleared Najmuddin of criminal wrongdoing.

An AFP spokesperson said the forfeiture action under Australia's Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was aimed at assets instead of individuals.

"Proceedings in the matter referred to in your request were finalised by forfeiture order in April 2017.

"These proceedings were civil based proceeds of crime action and were brought against property (the credit balance of a particular bank account) and not against a person.

"This action was based on there being a reasonable suspicion of unlawfully structured deposits into the particular bank account contrary to Australia’s anti-money laundering laws," the spokesperson told Malaysiakini.

Australia's Sydney Morning Herald on March 2 reported about the forfeiture but said it only focussed on the structured deposits made into Wan Ahmad's bank account but did not explore whether he was involved in indictable offences.

Fuzi (photo) had also cleared Wan Ahmad of wrongdoing in an internal inquiry on grounds that the funds were proceeds from selling his Shah Alam residence to finance his children's education in Australia. 

The police chief also said Wan Ahmad did not try to recover the seized fund due to the high legal cost.

However, several opposition MPs questioned the reasoning, pointing out that he could engage lawyers on a "no cure-no pay" basis.

Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching had even volunteered to crowdfundfor Wan Ahmad's legal cost.

However, the AFP spokesperson said that in most cases, the proceeding is considered to have concluded once a forfeiture order has been made.

"While some mechanisms under the Act may continue to apply after forfeiture, the vast majority of proceedings are concluded once a forfeiture order is made by the court.

"In a period post forfeiture, funds that have been forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act are then paid into the Confiscated Assets Account; a special purpose account establish under the proceeds of crime legislation," said the spokesperson.

Before a forfeiture happens, the AFP spokesperson said the Proceeds of Crime Act allows for a range of mechanism allowing a person to claim an interest in a property or to have their interest excluded from a restraining order, forfeiture order or even to receive compensation in certain circumstances.

"The mechanisms that may be used depends on the circumstances of each case, including whether the forfeiture has already occurred and whether the person was notified of the proceedings prior to forfeiture.

"A person seeking to contest proceeds of crime action should seek advice from an Australian lawyer," he said. -Mkini