Tun Shafee Abdullah

" Just because that money gets into my account, that does not mean im aware that the money comes from wrong source"

So how to proof wahai...cendekiawan - cendekiawan K

In anti money laundering act, the burden of proof lie with defendant to show source of money to be legal.

why no moneh come to my bank account one?????

eh, he oledi tun? since when?

Banyak putar belit
Lidah biawak

If there is a money laundry at the amount of 2.6b. Regardless of whether the CEO knew it or not, he is still liable.

u mix with the wrong friend.

Just because a pig gets onto my dinner table, doesn't mean it is not halal

Owaiii

Najib is boss of 1mdb.... money 1mdb go into his accounts....

Burden of proof he is not aware in on najib.

well.. if he spent it..
then its already proof since he knew it existed

Funny is need prosecution prove Najib is aware and know where the money is coming from

He already said to the whole Malaysian before right ?

but the already acknowledge the money is from saudi, it's purpose for political uses and admit use them and even send back balance to Saudi Prince.

so still can say i dunno how it ended up there ka ??

tipu budak pun tak lepas nie !!

tell that to semenyih and rantau folks...

najib is only advisor..not executive director

If Abu gives money to allgap...u can know abu money comes from meh?? Can u??

give me ur account number, let me insert some money...n decide where my money comes from

This post has been edited by bani_prime: Apr 15 2019, 09:11 PM

then where the money go after that ??

Burden of proof is on najib again that he is not in control of the executive directors.

Here

Section 3 of AMLA defines “money laundering” as the act of a person who:

Engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction that involves “proceeds of any unlawful activity”;

Acquires, receives, possesses, disguises, transfers, converts, exchanges, carries, disposes, uses, removes from or brings into Malaysia “proceeds of any unlawful activity”; or

Conceals, disguises or impedes the establishment of the true nature, origin, location, movement, disposition, title of, rights with respect to, or ownership of, “proceeds of any unlawful activity”.

In 2013, Parliament passed another amendment, resulting in further lengthening the already long title. It now reads the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA). This new amendment is intended to deal with “the proceeds of an unlawful activity” in addition to property involved in or derived from money laundering and terrorism financing offences.

The phrase “proceeds of unlawful activity” is defined to mean “any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of any unlawful activity”, whilst the term “unlawful activity” is defined as “any activity which is related, directly or indirectly, to any serious offence or any foreign serious offence". The term “serious offence” means any offences specified in the Second Schedule of AMLA and any attempt or abetment of those offences.

In the past, many thought of money laundering as the act of dealing with (“cleaning”) dirty money or black money. That perception is no longer correct, as the present scope of the law (after its 2007 and 2013 amendments) is indeed extremely wide.

The present situation is explained in Bank Negara Malaysia’s official portal as follows: “The enforcement of the AMLA is undertaken by various ministries/agencies based on the predicate offences under their respective purview which is listed under the Second Schedule of the AMLA. As at November 2014, there were 356 offences under 42 pieces of legislations listed under the Second Schedule of the AMLA.”

Some of these statutes setting out the “serious offences” envisaged under AMLA may be familiar to the general public, some may not — Penal Code (Act 574), Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Child Act 2001, Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, Customs Act 1967, Income Tax Act 1967, Capital Market and Services Act 2007, and the Financial Services Act 2013.

Against the backdrop of these various statutes, any person may be prosecuted under AMLA if he commits any one of these offences — such as criminal breach of trust, theft, accepting gratification, illegal deposit taking, carrying on unlicensed financial services, insider trading, falsifying documents, smuggling, offering and receiving bribes, and tax evasion.

In 2012, a medical practitioner falsified financial documents, resulting in RM42 million being transferred into her account. She was convicted under AMLA and sentenced to 38 years’ imprisonment and a RM639 million fine.

In the 2016 “Sabah watergate” case, MACC seized RM114 million from the homes of a Sabah Water Department director and his deputy. The money was stashed in their homes and the boot of a car. MACC investigators also seized jewellery and 127 land titles valued at RM30 million. The suspects’ bank accounts were also frozen.

It is generally understood that in criminal cases, the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 70(2) AMLA, the prosecution remains bound to discharge this heavy duty insofar as it has to prove an offence has been committed.

However, in relation to any other facts, Section 70(1) states that they be decided on the balance of probabilities (which is the standard of proof applicable to civil cases).

Section 4(2) AMLA is an extremely powerful provision. It states that a person may be convicted of an offence of money laundering “irrespective of whether there is a conviction in respect of a serious offence or foreign serious offence or that a prosecution has been initiated for the commission of a serious offence or foreign serious offence.”

This means that a person who is alleged to have committed a serious offence (such as tax evasion or smuggling under the applicable laws) may be convicted for money laundering (under AMLA) even if he has not been prosecuted or convicted for tax evasion or smuggling. The authorities may commence investigations under any of the statutes mentioned in the Second Schedule but may subsequently decide to prosecute the accused under AMLA.

he never pay tax. enough to go prison. no need care about other shit.

This post has been edited by Phoenix_KL: Apr 15 2019, 09:14 PM

you already acknowledge and admit that money is from this person and use it for that purpose