Retired judge calls for clear guidelines on money laundering compounds

 Yaacob Sam says public interest, transparency and accountability must guide decisions to settle cases out of court.

Controversial businessman Nicky Liow and Bersatu’s Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad are among prominent figures who have had their money laundering charges withdrawn after paying compounds.

PETALING JAYA:

The public prosecutor should issue clear directives and guidelines on the factors to be considered before offering compounds to individuals under investigation for money laundering, says a retired judge.

Yaacob Sam, a former Court of Appeal judge turned lawyer, said any compound offer must be guided by public interest, calling it paramount to ensuring justice.

He said transparency and accountability were also essential to prevent public perceptions of discrimination or favouritism in deciding who should be offered a compound or an out-of-court settlement.

“They should ensure public confidence is not eroded in our criminal justice system,” Yaacob said.

On Aug 7, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said controversial businessman Nicky Liow’s 26 money laundering charges were withdrawn in 2023 after he paid a RM10 million compound. Liow was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

The AGC agreed to offer the compound under Section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla), after accepting representations from Liow’s lawyers.

Last year, Bersatu’s Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad was acquitted of 12 corruption and money laundering charges after paying a RM4.1 million compound following representations accepted by the prosecution.

Yaacob, a former deputy head of the AGC’s prosecution division, said a compound was a legally permissible alternative to prosecuting a person for a money laundering offence.

“However, the ultimate power to compound an offence rests with the public prosecutor, whose consent must be obtained by any authority or relevant enforcement agency.”

He said payment of a compound could save the court considerable time and resources, as it would remove the need for a tedious process of a trial.

“From my years as a prosecutor and judge, it takes an average of three years for a money laundering case to be concluded in the courts,” he added.

Lawyer Fahmi Abdul Moin said the public was understandably perplexed as to why some suspects were offered compounds without going through a full court process, while in other cases charges are withdrawn after compounds are paid.

Fahmi, a former Bank Negara Malaysia deputy public prosecutor, however acknowledged that Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution gives the attorney-general wide and exclusive discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence.

Under Section 4 of Amla, a person convicted of money laundering faces up to 15 years in prison and a fine no less than five times the amount or value of the illicit proceeds, or RM5 million, whichever is higher.

Section 92(1) provides for the compounding of offences but states that the compounded sum must not exceed 50% of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence.

While Section 4 does not outline a maximum fine amount, Yaacob said the courts typically treat the “five times” regime as the ceiling to ensure consistency with the punishment for corruption offences under Section 24(b) of the MACC Act.

Yaacob was a member of the Attorney‑General’s Chambers’ special task force that drafted and enacted the anti-money laundering law. - FMT