Messrs. Edward Ng & Partners 爱德华黄律师事务所

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 7)

Practical tips for the public
Money laundering law does not only concern politicians and corporate figures. Ordinary people can be drawn into an investigation without realising it.

Never lend or rent out your bank account. Allowing others to use your account to receive or transfer money can expose you to a money laundering investigation, even if you did not benefit from the money.

Ask where the money comes from. Because the law can catch those who fail to take reasonable steps to check the source of property, accepting large sums without asking questions is risky.

Keep proper records. If you receive a significant payment, keep documents showing what it was for, such as invoices, agreements, receipts or payslips.
Seek legal advice early. If you are called to give a statement, or your account is frozen or seized, speak to a lawyer as soon as possible.

Conclusion
Must the predicate offence be proven? AMLA does not require a conviction for the predicate offence, and the prosecution need not always identify one specific crime. But the prosecution must still prove that the money came from an unlawful activity. The Syed Saddiq case shows clearly what happens when it cannot. Once the underlying offence was not proven, the money laundering charges built on it could not survive.

AMLA gives the authorities strong tools to combat money laundering, and the 2025 amendments have widened its reach further. At the same time, the courts continue to insist that dirty money must actually be shown to be dirty before anyone is convicted of laundering it.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
Keywords: money laundering Malaysia, predicate offence, AMLA, AMLATFPUAA 2001, Act 613, section 4 AMLA, pengubahan wang haram, kesalahan berat predikat, Syed Saddiq money laundering case, Syed Saddiq Federal Court, proceeds of unlawful activity, serious offence, AMLA Amendment Act 2025, forfeiture section 56 AMLA, money mule Malaysia

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 6)

Lessons from the case
A money laundering charge is only as strong as its predicate offence. Where the prosecution builds its money laundering case on a specific crime and cannot prove that crime, the money laundering charge will usually fail with it.
Section 4 is not a shortcut. Although a conviction for the predicate offence is not required, the prosecution must still show that the money came from an unlawful activity.

Suspicious transactions are not proof of a crime. Moving money between accounts, making large withdrawals or investing money in ASB does not by itself make the money dirty.

Good records can make all the difference. Syed Saddiq’s declaration of campaign expenses to the Election Commission helped show that he had genuinely spent his own money and was entitled to be reimbursed.

Evidence must be reliable and properly weighed. The case is a reminder that courts will scrutinise how evidence was obtained, whether key witnesses were called and whether the accused’s explanation was fairly considered.

What about forfeiture of property?
Criminal prosecution is not the only tool available under AMLA. The Act also allows property to be forfeited. Under section 55, forfeiture may follow a prosecution. Under section 56, the Public Prosecutor may apply to the court for forfeiture even where no one has been charged. Section 56A further provides that a forfeiture order is not affected by an acquittal.

In each case, however, the court must still be satisfied that the property is connected with an unlawful activity, and section 61 protects bona fide third parties who acquired the property in good faith. So while a person may lose property without ever being convicted of an offence, the same basic principle applies. The link between the property and an unlawful activity must be established.

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 5)

Gaps in the prosecution’s evidence
The court also found weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. The main prosecution witness gave inconsistent evidence at different stages of the trial. There was evidence that several witnesses had been placed under pressure during the investigation, which gave rise to a reasonable inference that the main witness may have tailored his evidence to suit the prosecution’s case.

In addition, the prosecution did not call the two individuals who had actually organised the fundraisers, even though they were best placed to explain the status of the money. The court therefore applied the presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 that their evidence, had it been produced, would have been unfavourable to the prosecution. Notably, the High Court had not considered these matters at all.

Why the money laundering charges could not stand
Syed Saddiq’s defence to the money laundering charges was that he had no reason to believe or suspect that the RM100,000 was the proceeds of an unlawful activity, because he regarded it as his own money.

Having found that the misappropriation charge was not proven, the Federal Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the money laundering charges could not be sustained. Put simply, the prosecution’s case was that the money in the ASB account was dirty because it had been misappropriated. Once the court found that the money had not been misappropriated, and that it in fact belonged to Syed Saddiq, there was no dirty money left. Without dirty money, there can be no money laundering.

The same reasoning applied to the abetment charge. The court agreed that the party’s constitution only required prior approval for expenses (perbelanjaan) exceeding RM500,000, not for withdrawals (pengeluaran), and that the RM1 million had been used for Armada’s programmes. As there was no dishonest misappropriation by the assistant treasurer, there was no principal offence for Syed Saddiq to have abetted. Once again, when the underlying offence failed, the charge that depended on it failed too.

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 4)

The Syed Saddiq case
Background and the charges
At the material time, Syed Saddiq was the head of Armada, the youth wing of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. He faced four charges.

The first was for abetting criminal breach of trust involving RM1 million of Armada’s funds, which was withdrawn from Armada’s bank account in March 2020. The second was for dishonestly misappropriating RM120,000 under section 403 of the Penal Code. This money had been collected at two fundraising events in 2018 and deposited into the bank account of Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE), before being transferred to his personal account in four tranches. The third and fourth charges were for money laundering under section 4(1)(b) of AMLA, in respect of two transfers of RM50,000 each from his personal account into his Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB) account in June 2018.

The link between the charges is the key to understanding the case. The prosecution’s position was that the RM100,000 transferred into the ASB account was dirty money because it came from the RM120,000 that had allegedly been misappropriated. In other words, the section 403 charge was expressly the predicate offence for both money laundering charges.

The decisions of the courts
The High Court convicted Syed Saddiq on all four charges. On 25 June 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed his appeal and set aside all the convictions and sentences. The prosecution then appealed to the Federal Court, which dismissed the appeal in July 2026 and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision on all charges (Public Prosecutor v Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman and other appeals [2026] MLJU 3034).

Whose money was it?
Since the money laundering charges depended on the misappropriation charge, the central question was whether the RM120,000 had been dishonestly misappropriated. The offence under section 403 can only be committed in respect of property belonging to someone other than the accused. The court therefore had to decide who the money belonged to.

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 3)

So, must the predicate offence be proven?
The short answer is that the predicate offence does not need a conviction, but it still needs to be proven.

On the first point, AMLA is clear. Section 4 provides that a person may be convicted of money laundering whether or not anyone has been convicted of, or even prosecuted for, the serious offence that produced the money. The Act also provides that where the money comes from more than one unlawful activity, the prosecution does not have to show which specific activity it came from. These provisions exist because criminals often go to great lengths to hide the origin of their money, and the law would be far less effective if every predicate crime had to be separately prosecuted first.

On the second point, however, the prosecution cannot escape its basic burden. It must still prove that the money is the proceeds of an unlawful activity. Large transfers, unusual withdrawals or a lifestyle that seems beyond a person’s means may raise suspicion, but suspicion alone does not make money dirty.

A simple illustration helps. To convict someone of receiving a stolen motorcycle, the police do not need to catch and convict the thief first. They must, however, prove that the motorcycle was in fact stolen. If it turns out to have been bought legitimately, there is no case, no matter how suspicious the buyer appeared.

This point becomes even sharper when the prosecution chooses to link the money laundering charge to a particular predicate offence and tries both charges together. In that situation, the money laundering charge depends entirely on the predicate charge. If the court finds that the predicate offence has not been proven, the money laundering charge built upon it will usually collapse as well. The Syed Saddiq case is a clear example.

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 2)

What is a predicate offence?
Money cannot be laundered unless it was dirty to begin with. The crime that produced the dirty money is known as the predicate offence, or kesalahan berat (predikat) in Malay. Common examples include corruption, criminal breach of trust, cheating and drug trafficking.

AMLA expresses this idea through a series of definitions in section 3. The Act refers to the “proceeds of an unlawful activity”, meaning property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from an unlawful activity. An “unlawful activity” in turn is linked to a “serious offence”, which is the predicate offence itself. The Act also recognises a “foreign serious offence”, so money generated by a crime committed overseas can still form the basis of a money laundering charge in Malaysia.

The scope of serious offences was widened by the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities (Amendment) Act 2025. As a result, more types of crime can now give rise to a money laundering charge than before.

What must the prosecution prove?
Section 4(1) of AMLA creates the main offence of money laundering. In broad terms, the prosecution must prove three things beyond reasonable doubt. First, the property is dirty, meaning that it is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or was used as an instrument to commit an offence. Second, the accused dealt with the property, for example by receiving, possessing, transferring, converting, using or concealing it. Third, the accused had a guilty mind.

The third element deserves attention because it affects ordinary people as much as those accused of serious crimes. Section 4 allows the court to infer the accused’s state of mind from the objective facts of the case. A person may be caught not only where he knew or had reason to believe that the money was dirty, but also where he had reasonable suspicion, or where he failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to find out where the money came from. In other words, choosing not to ask questions is not necessarily a defence.

25/09/2026

Must the Predicate Offence Be Proven? Lessons from Syed Saddiq and Other Recent Money Laundering Cases (Part 1)

Introduction
In July 2026, the Federal Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of Muar Member of Parliament Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman. The decision brought an end to a case involving four charges, two of which were for money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613), commonly known as AMLA or AMLATFPUAA 2001.

For many members of the public, the outcome raised a simple question. If a person is charged with money laundering, how can the charge simply fall away? The answer lies in what lawyers call the “predicate offence”. This article explains what a predicate offence is, what the prosecution must prove in a money laundering case in Malaysia, and what the Syed Saddiq case teaches us about the relationship between the two.

What is money laundering?
Money laundering, or pengubahan wang haram in Malay, is the process of making money obtained from crime appear to come from a lawful source. The aim is to break the link between the money and the crime, so that the money can be used freely without attracting suspicion.

It is commonly described as taking place in three stages. The first is placement, where illegal money is brought into the financial system, for example by depositing cash into bank accounts. The second is layering, where the money is moved through a series of transactions between accounts, companies or even countries so that its trail becomes difficult to follow. The third is integration, where the money returns to the economy looking legitimate, perhaps as a property purchase, business income or an investment.

Not every case goes through all three stages. Under Malaysian law, a single act such as receiving, transferring or using dirty money can be enough to amount to money laundering.

25/09/2026

养了12年的华人孩子，BSK调查后竟变身穆斯林？血泪教训曝光

Messrs Edward Ng & Partners | 爱德华黄律师事务所 (BY Lawyer Edward Ng Kee Way 创办人爱德华·黄志威律师)
📍Kuala Lumpur HQ: Suite 16-6, 16th Floor, Wisma UOA II, No. 21, Jalan Pinang 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
📞Phone: +6018-9650193 (Whatsapp) | +603-2709 3996
🌐Website: www.edwardngpartners.com
🔴FB: https://www.facebook.com/edwardngpartners/
🔴Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/edwardngpartners/
🔴TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/
🔴Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/
🔴XiaoHongShu: https://xhslink.com/m/3TbYHE4P0H2
🔴LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edwardngpartners

📖 案情核心
华人夫妻年近40求子心切，领养一名未婚先孕马来女孩所生的婴儿，图方便虚报为亲生子女，安稳度过12年
孩子办MyKad时被柜台官员识破样貌与"父母"出生证明不符，转介BSK调查
父母没请律师贸然应讯、主动交出文件，最终"帮"调查部门查出了亲生母亲
结局：公民权保住了，但因生母是穆斯林，孩子在法律上"变成"了穆斯林

⚖️ 三大核心法律真相
1️⃣ 宗教信仰跟随亲生母亲：只要生母是穆斯林，孩子自动被视为穆斯林，养育年数和养父母信仰都改变不了这个身份
2️⃣ 虚报出生是刑事罪：把领养孩子登记为亲生子女属于刑事罪行，孩子长大办证件时极可能被拆穿
3️⃣ 公民权与宗教身份是两回事：非穆斯林不能抚养或领养穆斯林孩子，保住国籍不代表保住原本的身份与生活方式

💡 给领养父母的忠告
千万别心存侥幸虚报出生，问题只会延后爆发
收到BSK调查信件或电话，第一件事不是"如实招来"，而是先咨询有实战经验的律师
领养孩子前务必了解孩子的宗教背景与相关法律后果，尤其是跨宗教领养

⚠️ Disclaimer/免责声明
For general info only; not legal advice & forms no lawyer-client relationship. Consult a lawyer for specific advice. Case details are shared with client consent.
仅供一般参考，不构成法律意见，亦不建立律师客户关系。具体个案请咨询专业律师。案例分享均已获客户知情同意。

#非法领养 #国民登记局 #穆斯林身份 #虚报出生 #马来西亚公民权 #马来西亚法律科普

19/09/2026

养了12年的华人孩子，BSK调查后竟变身穆斯林？血泪教训曝光 PART 3

Messrs Edward Ng & Partners | 爱德华黄律师事务所 (BY Lawyer Edward Ng Kee Way 创办人爱德华·黄志威律师)
📍Kuala Lumpur HQ: Suite 16-6, 16th Floor, Wisma UOA II, No. 21, Jalan Pinang 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
📞Phone: +6018-9650193 (Whatsapp) | +603-2709 3996
🌐Website: www.edwardngpartners.com
🔴FB: https://www.facebook.com/edwardngpartners/
🔴Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/edwardngpartners/
🔴TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/
🔴Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/
🔴XiaoHongShu: https://xhslink.com/m/3TbYHE4P0H2
🔴LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edwardngpartners

📌 本期视频核心内容
公民权保住了，代价却是——孩子必须从法律上变成穆斯林。

⚖️ 本期重点观察
血缘认定改写宗教身份
非穆斯林父母无法再抚养穆斯林孩子

💡 给父母最沉重的忠告
千万不要找只懂理论、却给不出实际解决方案的人——这个案件中的父母，正是因为求助太迟,才发现原本聘请的律师处理方式其实大有问题。

📌视频字幕：
那故事说到这里
大家都会感觉说公民权保住了
那总该没问题了吧
有没有问题呢
那就要看视乎大家如何看待
这件事情了
孩子经历了调查
因为真实的母亲是 马来人
那所以孩子的出生证明上
华人的父母名字需要被 删除掉
然后放上 穆斯林母亲 的名字
孩子照理来说就应该是穆斯林了
那看到这里大家会说
养了12年的孩子
怎么就突然变成了穆斯林呢？
那能怎么办呢？
那非穆斯林的父母是不能照顾
或者领养穆斯林小孩的
那小孩现在还没到18岁那怎么办呢？
他现在如果要做马来西亚的身份证
需要那位素未谋面的亲生母亲出现
一起去JPN
才能办成这个身份证
那现在的问题是
这位母亲 愿意出来 吗？
都会产生过后种种的疑问
孩子之后的生活怎么办？
因为生活方式需要改变
因为
穆斯林的生活方式不一样了嘛
孩子的学习怎么办？
孩子的名字怎么办？
一切的一切都会发生改变
孩子说自从我懂事以来呢
我都是信奉佛教，道教
生活方式跟普通的
华人没有什么区别
现在如果突然
叫他根据穆斯林的生活方式
怎么办呢？
还有一个点是
要由谁来照顾他呢？
他要如何过
他的穆斯林的生活方式呢？
他也不会穆斯林的可兰经
或者是那些穆斯林的那些
宗教上的教导
这些种种种种的问题
就会在那个孩子的脑海中出现
那如果这个孩子问如果我不想要
信奉这个宗教可以吗？
那当然那个孩子有权利去聘请
伊斯兰法这方面的律师
申请出教
可是这个又是另外一回事了
那这里就不谈论关于这个课题
那我个人认为伊斯兰呢
是一个好的宗教
教导人行善
做好事帮助人
都是教导好的
没有不好的
可是我们都知道 ISLAM IS A WAY OF LIFE
生活方式跟非穆斯林是不一样的
所以那对夫妇和孩子彼此之间
可能也无法接受
这个转变或者孩子生活方式的改变
那我今天要强调的重点是
如果真的是收到
BSK的信件
或者收到部门的电话
要求去接受调查
在还没有去之前
请务必先咨询这一方面
有非常 多实战经验
处理过这一方面案件和能提供
这一方面
解决法律问题的律师
这个绝对要记住
绝对不能去找那些
了解理论可不知道
解决方案是什么
或者不能提供一个完整
解决方案的人

想了解全部内容，请观看：
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpo4h12aF-w

⚠️ Disclaimer/免责声明
For general info only; not legal advice & forms no lawyer-client relationship. Consult a lawyer for specific advice. Case details are shared with client consent.
仅供一般参考，不构成法律意见，亦不建立律师客户关系。具体个案请咨询专业律师。案例分享均已获客户知情同意。

#大马公民权 #穆斯林身份 #出教 #伊斯兰法 #马来西亚法律科普 #爱德华黄律师事务所 #马来西亚律师事务所 #值得信赖的法律伙伴 #专业法律团队

19/09/2026

Empat Warga China Didakwa Culik Lelaki Singapura di Pulau Pinang

Dalam kes ini, Edward Ng & Partners bertindak sebagai peguam bela bagi Liu Ting Jun, salah seorang daripada empat tertuduh. Peguam Edward Ng mewakili Liu semasa prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen Pulau Pinang, termasuk permohonan ikat jamin.

BALIK PULAU — Empat warga China termasuk seorang wanita berdepan hukuman berat selepas didakwa di Mahkamah Sesyen di sini atas pertuduhan menculik seorang lelaki warga emas Singapura, Julai lalu.

Kesemua tertuduh yang dikenali sebagai Liu Ting Jun, 46; Huang Jian, 39; Wang Hao Yu, 32; dan Guan Siqi, 24, mengaku tidak bersalah selepas pertuduhan dibacakan di hadapan Hakim Ahzal Fariz Ahmad Khairuddin.

Mengikut pertuduhan, mereka didakwa secara niat bersama telah menculik dan mengurung mangsa berusia 72 tahun itu untuk mendapatkan wang tebusan berjumlah SG$ 1 juta (kira-kira RM3.2 juta). Jenayah terancang itu didakwa dilakukan di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Pulau Pinang (LTAPP), Bayan Lepas pada jam 4.15 petang, 26 Julai lalu.

Pendakwaan dibuat mengikut Seksyen 3(1) Akta Penculikan 1961. Sabit kesalahan, kesemua tertuduh boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara minimum 30 tahun dan maksimum 40 tahun, berserta hukuman sebatan mandatori.

Timbalan Pendakwa Raya membantah sebarang tawaran ikat jamin memandangkan jenayah yang dilakukan adalah amat serius, selain status tertuduh sebagai warga asing yang mempunyai risiko tinggi untuk melarikan diri. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan bantahan tersebut dan menolak permohonan jaminan.

Kesemua tertuduh akan terus direman di penjara sehingga tarikh sebutan semula kes yang ditetapkan pada 15 Oktober hadapan.

Terdahulu, sindiket penculikan ini berjaya ditumpaskan oleh pihak polis dalam satu serbuan berdarah di Alor Setar, Kedah pada 7 Ogos lepas. Operasi menyelamat itu telah mencetuskan kejadian berbalas tembakan yang menyaksikan dua rakan jenayah mereka maut ditembak di tempat kejadian.

BALIK PULAU - Empat warga China, termasuk seorang wanita, mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen di sini hari ini atas pertuduhan menculik seorang lelaki warga Singapura bagi mendapatkan wang tebusan SG$1 juta, Julai lalu. Guan Siqi, 24, Wang Huo Yu, 33, Huang Jian, 39, dan Liu Tingjun, 46, membu...