Anti-money laundering law as a legal mechanism to combat corruption in Malaysia

Money laundering is a process of disguising proceeds from unlawful activities and has been a complex crime globally. Developed and developing countries establish antimoney laundering regimes in the view to combat this ever-challenging crime. Corruption is an act which involves abuse of power in return for illicit and private gains. Corruption is considered as one of the predicate offences which utilises the process of laundering those illicit gains. Both money laundering and corruption have immense impact on social, financial and economic sectors. In Malaysia, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACCA) are primary legislations enacted to combat money laundering and corruption respectively. Little study or research has been carried out on the effectiveness of utilising forfeiture regime under anti-money laundering law to combat corruption in Malaysia. This study attempts to investigate whether the current forfeiture regime under AMLATFPUAA is effective in fighting corruption. A comparative analysis between AMLATFPUAA and MACCA forfeiture provisions is done. This study is a doctrinal research where the researcher relies mainly on case laws, legislations and published materials such as journal articles. Findings show that forfeiture provisions are tools to ensure criminals do not escape with the benefits from the unlawful acts. Forfeiture halts the financial system of criminal organisations. Hence, they may not be able to commit further crimes. A comparative analysis discovers that AMLATFPUAA is more comprehensive than MACCA in terms of punishment for the offences, duration of forfeiture, freezing and seizure, and procedure and circumstances covered. Several recommendations are put forward here such as combining enforcement plans for anti-corruption and anti-money laundering, increasing the implementation of extraterritoriality, providing adequate training for legal enforcers, and increasing punishment for non-compliance of forfeiture order as well as for corruption. The recommendations given are for the enforcement agencies to consider for future improvements.