Pendakwa Raya v 1. ) Anugerah Rfthree Wellness (JA-44-26-07/2025)

The Public Prosecutor applied pursuant to sections 56 and 61 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act ("AMLA") 2001 for Orders that various properties be forfeited to the Federal Government on the basis that they constitute proceeds of unlawful activity and/or instrumentalities of an offence.

The original Notice of Motion (Enclosure ("Encl") 1) was amended twice. The operative Motion for the purposes of these proceedings is the re-amended Motion in Encl 14, filed against eight Respondents.

Despite due notification, none of the eight Respondents appeared at the hearing on 16 April 2026, nor were any Affidavits in Opposition filed. This Court allowed Prayers 2 to 2.11 against all eight Respondents on that date. Only the Fifth Respondent, SkyHigh 36 Empire, has filed an Appeal.

A note on nomenclature is necessary. In an earlier amendment to the Notice of Motion, the Fourth Respondent, Mohfaz Trading, was deleted as a Respondent. As a result, in Encl 4, the Investigating Officer refers to SkyHigh 36 Empire as the Fourth Respondent, whereas the re-amended Motion in Encl 14 designates it as the Fifth Respondent. To avoid confusion, this judgment refers to SkyHigh 36 Empire by name throughout.

As the written grounds here address the Appeal filed by SkyHigh 36 Empire, this Court confines its grounds to matters arising from that Appeal. The findings and orders against the remaining Respondents are final and not subject to appeal before this Court.

The procedural chronology leading to the hearing on 16 April 2026 is as follows:

On 10 October 2025, the Court granted an Order to gazette the Notice, with the hearing set for 15 December 2025.

On 17 November 2025, Solicitors appeared for Respondents 1,2,3,4,6,7 and 8 and for SkyHigh 36 Empire, and sought time to file Affidavits. The Court granted two weeks to SkyHigh 36 Empire to file its Affidavit in Opposition. This led to the hearing on 15 December 2025 being vacated and rescheduled to 3 March 2026.

The Prosecution filed Encl 12 to re-amend Encl 10 (the first amended Motion), which was heard on 5 February 2026. Insufficient time remained to re-gazette the Notice, and the hearing was accordingly rescheduled to 16 April 2026. On that same date, the attending Solicitor recorded no objection to Encl 12, the Order was granted, and the re-amended Notice of Motion was filed and extracted as Encl 14.

On 26 February 2026, a Solicitor acting for SkyHigh 36 Empire wrote to the Court via Encl 15, seeking to be served with the Cause Papers and requesting that the hearing on 3 March 2026 be conducted via Zoom. That date had already been vacated on 5 February 2026.

By letter dated 3 March 2026 (Encl 18), the Court replied to SkyHigh 36 Empire's Solicitor at the email address on record that the 3 March 2026 date had been vacated, that the hearing was set for 16 April 2026, and that the Zoom request was denied.

The Gazette was published on 11 March 2026, naming 16 April 2026 as the hearing date, being more than 30 days prior to the hearing. Pursuant to section 18(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, gazette publication constitutes sufficient notice to the world at large: "Publication in the official Gazette of Malaysia shall constitute sufficient notice of any matter required to be published in the Gazette by or under any federal law ..." There is no fixed period of notice specified in the AMLA 2001 beyond compliance with gazette notification, which was duly satisfied.

Cause Papers were served on SkyHigh 36 Empire's Solicitor by the Prosecution on 8 April 2026, as evidenced by Encl 24. It is not the Court's responsibility to serve Cause Papers; that obligation rests with the Applicant. Any failure by the Respondents to obtain or review those papers cannot be attributed to the Court or used to impugn the validity of the proceedings.

The hearing proceeded on 16 April 2026 notwithstanding the non-attendance of all Respondents' Solicitors and the absence of any Affidavit in Opposition. The Respondents had been afforded more than sufficient time to file Affidavits and chose not to do so. C. Issues for Determination

The following issues arise for determination:

Whether the Public Prosecutor has established, on a balance of probabilities, that an unlawful activity within the meaning of the AMLA 2001 has been committed;

Whether the subject properties constitute:

proceeds of unlawful activity; or

(ii) instrumentalities of an offence;

Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the unlawful activity and the properties sought to be forfeited;

Whether the procedural requirements under the AMLA 2001, including service and gazette notification, have been complied with; and

Whether, in the absence of any response from the Respondents, a Forfeiture Order ought to be granted. D. Applicable Statutory Framework

The Application is made pursuant to sections 56(1), 58, 59 and 61(2) of the AMLA 2001. Section 56 provides for the civil forfeiture of property that may be seized under the AMLA 2001 even in the absence of prosecution or conviction, in respect of the following categories: terrorism financing; money laundering; proceeds of an unlawful activity; property of a proliferator; or instrumentalities of an offence.

The relevant definitions in section 3 of the AMLA 2001 are as follows:

'Unlawful activity' means "any activity which is a serious offence or a foreign serious offence, or is one that occurs, results or leads to the commission of a serious offence or any foreign serious offence". The Second Schedule of the AMLA 2001 lists the provisions constituting 'serious offences'.

'Instrumentalities of an offence' means property wholly or partly used in connection with the commission of any unlawful activity.

'Proliferator property' means proceeds from the commission of any restricted activity, property that has been or is likely to be used by a proliferator in the commission of any restricted activity, including funds derived or generated from such activity, or property collected for the purpose of providing support or funding for any restricted activity.

Section 56(1A) of the AMLA 2001 requires the Prosecutor to be satisfied that the property falls within one of the prescribed categories. Section 56(2) imposes a duty on the Court to make Orders of Forfeiture upon such satisfaction. Section 56(4) expressly provides that the standard of proof applicable to the predicate offence is the civil standard of balance of probabilities.

Section 61 of the AMLA 2001 requires the Court to order a Gazette Notice calling upon any third parties to show cause why the property ought not be forfeited. Failure to appear on the stated date extinguishes any right to make a subsequent claim. The procedural requirements of section 61 of the AMLA 2001 were duly complied with in this case, as elaborated in Section B above. No Respondent can be heard to complain of inadequate notice.

Section 137 of the Financial Services Act ("FSA") 2013, which is a serious offence within the Second Schedule of the AMLA 2001, provides: "(1) No person shall accept deposits except under a licence granted under section 10 regardless of whether the transaction is described as a loan, an advance, an investment, a savings, a sale or a sale and repurchase or by whatever name called.

Any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine not exceeding fifty million ringgit or to both." E. Applicable Legal Principles

The applicable legal principles are well-settled. In Kavindra Suppiah v PP [2026] 1 CLJ 527, the Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of section 56 of the AMLA 2001, the determining factor is whether the Prosecution has satisfied the Court that the unlawful activity falls within any of the four paragraphs of section 56(1A) of the AMLA 2001. No prior conviction is required.

In Liew Ket Boh v PP [2024] 3 CLJ 563, the Court of Appeal confirmed that:

proceedings under section 56 of the AMLA 2001 are quasi-criminal in nature and no trial is undertaken against the Respondent;

any document obtained by the Prosecutor may be used in section 56 proceedings, including a section 112 Criminal Procedure Code statement which would otherwise be barred;

no prior conviction is required before section 56 proceedings are commenced; and

the broad definition of 'money laundering' in section 4 of the AMLA 2001 enables the Prosecutor to forfeit liquid assets.

In JJ Power Groups Enterprise v PP [2025] 7 CLJ 378, the Federal Court affirmed that the standard of proof for the predicate offence under section 56 of the AMLA 2001 is the balance of probabilities, consistent with section 56(4) of the AMLA 2001.

The cumulative effect of these authorities establishes that civil forfeiture under section 56 of the AMLA 2001 is an action against property, not a criminal prosecution against a person. The Prosecution need only satisfy the Court on a balance of probabilities that the subject property constitutes proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence.

The Cause Papers filed by the Prosecutor comprise: an Affidavit by the AMLA 2001 Investigating Officer (Encl 2) dated 6 August 2025; the Predicate Officer's Affidavit (Encl 3); and the Investigating Officer's Affidavit (Encl 4), supported by various exhibits. The term 'Predicate Officer' refers to the Investigating Officer responsible for investigating the underlying predicate offence, being the serious criminal offence that generates the illicit proceeds.

The primary predicate offence, as deposed in Encl 4, relates to the unlicensed acceptance of deposits from the public through a scheme known as 'skim simpanan ahli', operated by XFOX Market Sdn Bhd and its affiliated entities. XFOX Market Sdn Bhd collected money from members under the guise of savings and investments without any regulatory approval or licence under section 10 of the FSA 2013, constituting an offence under section 137(1) of the FSA 2013 [See: Encl 4, paragraph 7]. XFOX Market Sdn Bhd is confirmed to have had no approval or licence under section 10 of the FSA 2013.

The entities and individuals investigated are identified in Encl 4 at paragraph 6 as: Anugerah RFThree Wellness; Mahma Synergies; Mantops Synergy Empire; SkyHigh 36 Empire; Xprodynamic Sdn Bhd; Zaim & Co; DDYA Maju Enterprise; Suhaila binti Semaru; Muhammad Wahbah Az-Zuhaili bin Mohd Ariffin; Mohamad Noor Syauqi bin Mohammad Shafiee; Mohd Najmi Rahami bin Zolkifle; and Muhammad Syabil Ajwad bin Mohd Ariffin.

The investigation established the following:

On 30 July 2024, raids were conducted at nine locations leading to police reports lodged [See: Exhibit AKAK-1 of Encl 4].

Assets were frozen and seized from multiple bank accounts connected to all Respondents under section 44 of the AMLA 2001, read with section 50(1) of the AMLA 2001, on the basis that they were suspected proceeds of unlawful activity. A detailed list of 89 accounts with associated amounts totalling millions of Ringgit is set out in Exhibit AKAK-3 [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 12 to 14.5].

Customers subscribing to the scheme were required to deposit money with entities designated by XFOX, known as 'Local Depositors'. The Affidavit in Encl 4 confirms that Respondents 1 to 4 and 7 were Local Depositors who received funds from the illegal scheme and further transferred them to third parties [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 22.3 to 22.4 and 23.3 to 23.4].

The flow of funds from the member savings scheme was traced into accounts controlled by the First to Fifth Respondents [SkyHigh 36 Empire] and then onward to designated company accounts. Bank account records, statements and transaction details were collected from RHB Bank Berhad, Standard Chartered Bank, CIMB Bank, Affin Bank and Public Bank.

Recorded interviews and statements under section 32 of the AMLA 2001 were taken from Respondents and bank officers, confirming their roles and knowledge of the scheme [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 20 to 23.2; Exhibits AKAK-7 to AKAK-16 in Encl 4]. These recordings were admitted into evidence via the Affidavits.

The investigation concluded that the funds in the accounts were proceeds from the illegal deposit-taking activities operated through XFOX and its related entities [See: Encl 4, paragraph 28].

The evidence against SkyHigh 36 Empire is deposed in detail in Encls 3 and 4. SkyHigh 36 Empire held accounts in CIMB Bank Berhad and Affin Bank Bhd [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 20 to 23.4]. The husband of the owner of SkyHigh 36 Empire exerted significant control and influence over its funds and had full access to these accounts [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 20.1, 20.2 and 21.3].

The financial evidence in respect of SkyHigh 36 Empire discloses the following pattern:

Funds from various Respondents' accounts (Respondents 1 to 5 and 8), received as Local Depositors from XFOX member savings, were channelled into XFOX company accounts and subsequently transferred out by SkyHigh 36 Empire.

Large sums were transferred among various corporate accounts and individuals. There is no evidence of any legitimate business activity. Specifically, large amounts were paid by SkyHigh 36 Empire from its CIMB account to Myfox Market Trading and Maritime Survey and Services Sdn Bhd, and from its Affin Bank account to XJewels Sdn Bhd and ZN Wealth Empire [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 20 to 23.4].

The evidence of the Agent Provocateurs is particularly damning against SkyHigh 36 Empire [See: Encl 3, paragraphs 31 to 34.5]. The Affidavit in Encl 4 confirms at paragraphs 20 to 23.2 the specific statements made by SkyHigh 36 Empire's representatives.

The predicate offences established on the evidence are:

Receiving deposits without a valid licence: XFOX Market Sdn Bhd operated a deposit-taking scheme without a licence issued by Bank Negara Malaysia, constituting an offence under section 137(1) of the FSA 2013.

Operating financial services without a licence: XFOX Market Sdn Bhd conducted financial services business without approval under section 10 of the FSA 2013.

Money laundering: The scheme involved offences under section 4(1) of the AMLA 2001, as the proceeds of the illegal deposit-taking were laundered through the accounts of the Respondents, including SkyHigh 36 Empire, by onward transfer to third-party entities to disguise their origin.

Facilitation by multiple entities and individuals: The scheme involved numerous companies and individuals acting as agents and Local Depositors who received and transferred deposits from scheme members, implicating them in the facilitation of unlicensed deposit-taking.

Unlike the facts in PP v Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 3 CLJ 650, where the requirements of section 56(1) of the AMLA 2001 were not met as the Prosecution had not provided evidence that the money sought to be forfeited was in fact proceeds from the predicate offence, the present case is supported by comprehensive evidence.

The Affidavits in Encls 2, 3 and 4 are supported by documentary evidence, recorded statements and financial forensic analysis, all exhibited therein. The conclusions reached were the product of a thorough, evidence-based investigation conducted over an extended period.

The investigation was a multifaceted probe involving intelligence gathering; financial forensic analysis; coordinated raids; asset freezing; recorded statements; and legal processes under the AMLA 2001 and the FSA 2013. The complex fund flows among multiple entities and individuals were methodically traced and documented, with supporting exhibits at AKAK-3 and AKAK-6 to AKAK-17 of Encl 4. Upon perusal of these documents, this Court is satisfied that they establish, on a balance of probabilities, the offences alleged.

The Prosecution's evidence stood wholly unrebutted. None of the Respondents appeared at the hearing or filed any Affidavit in Opposition, notwithstanding that they had been afforded ample time to do so and had actual and constructive notice of the proceedings. This Court was not only entitled but obliged to proceed to determine the Application on its merits and on the unrebutted evidence before it.

Upon a full evaluation of the evidence, this Court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that:

The unlawful activity, being the unlicensed acceptance of deposits in contravention of section 137(1) of the FSA 2013 and money laundering under section 4(1) of the AMLA 2001, has been established;

The subject properties are directly traceable to and constitute proceeds of that unlawful activity;

The financial evidence demonstrates a clear pattern of money laundering through the accounts of the Respondents, including SkyHigh 36 Empire [See: Encl 4, paragraphs 28 to 28.6];

The Prosecution has discharged its burden on a balance of probabilities; and

The Respondents have failed to rebut the Prosecution's case. I. Orders

This Court accordingly allows Prayers 2 to 2.11 of Encl 14 against all eight Respondents.

With specific reference to SkyHigh 36 Empire, the prayers in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of Encl 14 are allowed. The sums of RM229,682.85 and RM1,044,860.53 are hereby forfeited to the Federal Government pursuant to section 56(2) of the AMLA 2001, being proceeds of an unlawful activity directly connected to the illegal deposit-taking scheme operated by XFOX Market Sdn Bhd and its affiliated entities. Dated : 8th June 2026 (AVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU Counsel:- For the Applicant : Tuan Megat Mahathir Megat Afandi Pejabat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Aras 2, Bangunan Dato' Jaafar Muhammad Kota Iskandar, Iskandar Puteri 79100, Johor. For the Respondent : Tetuan Ng Fun Boon & Co No. JA8284 (Tingkat 1) Bandar Baru Jasin 3 77000 Jasin Melaka.