GISBH – Do Not Impose Pre-Conviction ‘Punishment’, Which May Caused Irreversible Damage to Business and Workers, Based on Allegations or Police’s Suspicions Before the Court Makes A Determination Of Guilt Police Should Best Investigate Crimes Against Children, AMLA offences, etc and leave investigation of ‘religious deviation’ or Islamic Offences to the respective Islamic Religious authorities # AMLA Orders should be by Court, not by Enforcement Agency (MADPET)

 

Media Statement – 26/9/2024

GISBH – Do Not Impose Pre-Conviction ‘Punishment’, Which May Caused Irreversible Damage to Business and Workers, Based on Allegations or Police’s Suspicions Before the Court Makes A Determination Of Guilt

Police Should Best Investigate Crimes Against Children, AMLA offences, etc  and leave investigation of ‘religious deviation’ or Islamic Offences to the respective Islamic Religious authorities # AMLA Orders should be by Court, not by Enforcement Agency

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is greatly concerned about police and State actions against Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holding (GISBH), related or subsidiary companies and individuals ‘linked’ to GISBH, including employees, where the initial complaint was on allegation of child abuse.

Rule of Law and principles of administration of justice must be complied with in always. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s assurance that the investigations are ‘… being handled without bias and in line with the rule of law…’, and that the ‘law must apply equally to all, regardless of affiliations…’ (Malay Mail, 25/9/2024) is welcomed.

NO to pre-conviction ‘punishments’

PM Anwar Ibrahim was also right when he said “…Before a sentence is passed, suspects should not be punished beforehand,” he said in his speech during the 25th SUHAKAM anniversary here today (BERNAMA, 9/9/2024).

Hence, the government must ensure that ‘no punishment’, some with irreparable damages, is not imposed, more so on the innocent persons and/or entities. If pre-conviction punishments already imposed, it must be speedily revoked or varied.

To date, it has been reported that various actions have been taken against other premises in the group, the freezing of accounts, the seizure of vehicles, property and others.

Remember that the 11/9/2024 was about the crime of child abuse and sexual crimes at children homes allegedly run by GISBH and/or its subsidiaries, which are usually crimes committed by individual persons, not business entities.

The individual perpetrators must be identified, investigated and charged – but it is unjust to also now act against sources of income and/or companies they own or work in, actions that have a significant, if not irreversible, impact to one’s livelihood and life.

Not Act Like Israel or US – quick to blame HAMAS without any trial or court’s determination of guilt or identity of the perpetrators.

After the 7/10/2024, bombing and ‘kidnapping’ of persons in Israel by some yet to be conclusively identified terrorist group, both Israel, United States and even United Kingdom were too fast to lay the blame on HAMAS, who was also the last democratically elected government of Gaza, if not Palestine.

There was pressure by Israel, Us and others to lay blame on Hamas, but UN Member States, even those in the Security Council, did not want to prematurely accuse HAMAS without due process, as the possibility existed that it always could be that the crimes were committed by other ‘terrorist’ groups, who was not linked to and/or controlled by HAMAS.

Until early 2024, the UN official position was that it was done by some ‘Palestinian armed groups in Gaza’. A perusal of UN Security Council Resolutions passed to date, sees that there is an absence of any provision that categorically blames HAMAS for the attack and atrocities of October 2023. The abuse of the VETO by those who wanted UN to lay blame on HAMAS has to date prevented the UN from taking a more concrete action.

Likewise, for alleged incidence of child abuse, which are committed by individual perpetrators, the worry is that the actions against GISBH, its subsidiaries, its leaders and persons associated or working in GIBSH linked businesses may be premature, and in violation of the proper administration of justice.

Presumption of Innocence Until Tried and Proven Guilty in Court

One important consideration must be the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, which is accepted in Malaysia.  Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (UDHR) states that, ‘Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.’

To date, a total of 153 accounts linked to GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) worth RM882,795.94 have been frozen, said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain. He said 38 vehicles, estimated to be worth RM3.94 million, and 14 plots of land, the value of which is still under investigation, were also seized. The freezing of the accounts was carried out under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act[AMLA Act}, while the seizures were made under  Section 45(2) of the same act. “A total of 26 animals, consisting of nine horses, 14 rabbits, and three peacocks, as well as cash amounting to RM18,650 and two watches valued at RM600, were also confiscated, “ (Sun, 24/9/2024)

AMLA – Orders to freeze accounts, seize property before Conviction must be COURT ORDERS – not Orders of Enforcement Agencies

It is shocking that AMLA Act now says that these sec. 44 freezing orders are Orders of the Enforcement Agency and not Court Orders, and this is dangerous and not just.

These orders require that the enforcement agency to have  reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has or will be committed OR the enforcement agency have reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the instrumentalities of an offence. It is absurd for an Enforcement Agency themselves to issue orders based on whether they, the agency, have the needed reasonable grounds. It must be some other – best the Courts.

MADPET is of the opinion that it must the Courts that issue such Section 44 AMLA ORDERS after determining the validity of the enforcement agency’s reasonable grounds. If not, such powers can/may be easily abused by the enforcement agency.

If Courts made the Orders, Courts would have been just to allow for some monies in these ‘frozen accounts’ to be used to pay wages, electricity and utility bills, rental of business premises and sufficient monies for owners of business to sustain their and their family’s livelihood. Completely cutting of suspects from ALL of their own monies is EVIL. Consideration should have been given as to how families, including children, live. Money is needed for regular debt financing, including house loans, car loans and others. Non-payment can result in loss of homes, etc.

Who issued the current orders? The Inspector General of Police, or some Inspector? The AMLA Act is not clear as to who has the powers, it just says ‘enforcement agency’.

Was the AMLA Order made with the knowledge and/or consent of the Home Minister and/or the Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim as these are 2 Ministers mentioned to be responsible for the AMLA Act?

AMLA Orders Must be Made Public for Malaysians want to know

Why is the ORDER not yet disclosed to the Public? Who is it against?

Note that section 44A gives the right to the ‘person named or described in the order’ to apply to revoke or vary the Order.

However, this Order naturally affects a lot of other people including workers, other persons and businesses who have business transaction with some of these business entities. Should not the right to apply to vary orders be given to all that are affected by such orders?

Remember, these are ORDERS issued even before the owner or persons linked to this account is even charged in Court, which means that at this stage, prosecution even does not have sufficient evidence to charge the said person in court. Section 44(5) states ‘(5) An order made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect after ninety days from the date of the order, if the person against whom the order was made has not been charged with an offence under this Act or a terrorism financing offence,..’

Note also the legal principle, is that one ‘…should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him…’ which was also stated by late Supreme Court Judge Tan Sri Harun Mahmud Hashim in the 1980 judgement of the Tan Kim San Case.

So, if GIBSH or persons linked to the company is being investigated for AMLA Act offences, and not yet even charged, great care must be taken in the issue of such Orders prematurely.

The primary concern is that money may be transferred overseas, so would not a different order suffice to prevent transfer of money overseas out the court’s jurisdiction at this stage. Once he/she is charged, the order could be varied because then prosecution then only is confident that they have sufficient evidence to prove his/her guilt in court. We reiterate that Prime Minister Anwar stated that, ‘…suspects should not be punished beforehand…’

Was the AMLA Freezing Accounts and Seizing Property Orders Extraordinary, even Discriminatory?

Najib Razak is also being charged and tried for an AMLA offence, and one wonders whether all his bank accounts have been frozen, his house and property seized, his horses and pets ‘confiscated’? In the SRC case too, he was convicted for AMLA offence. Comparing other AMLA cases, did they too suffer similar kind of bank account freezing, land/property seizures, and other pre-conviction ‘punishment’ as what we are seeing with this case related to GIBSH cases. Remember, our constitution guarantees equality.

In this case, GISBH and/or its subsidiaries had not even been charged, only been suspected of offences by the police, but what is happening to them may be a gross injustice.

What happens if after trial (if it happens), and they are shown to be innocent of the charges. The damage has been done, and it is uncertain whether their business will survive, or the prejudice created will ever go away.

In the infamous 1980s McMartin preschool case, where similar allegation of child abuse was made, it ultimately ended with no convictions, and revelation that the reports were baseless or false. 40 years later, the losses suffered by the owner families and employees concerned and the business cannot be remedied – they remain victims of a gross injustice. Now what happened in this case  is considered “the epic failure of trusted institutions: law enforcement, courts, the child-therapy establishment and the media.”. The worry is that employees, owners and GISBH companies may suffer similar irreparable injustices if the allegations are at the end of the day found to be FALSE or baseless.

We do not want to CREATE new victims of injustice – the alleged perpetrators of the crimes investigated, who may end up being INNOCENT.

What is this ‘crackdown” about child abuse, or religious deviants?

Allegations of crimes against children, including abuse and sexual abuse, must be promptly acted on without delay. Suspected victims must be speedily ‘rescued’, as any delay poses the risk of the child suffering further abuse, or more children falling victims.

Did the police delay, in this case, as when it acted, it involved many different child homes at one go, when reasonably a earlier report would have been about 1 incident at one home – or did the allegations of these abuse surface all at the same time involving such cases of child abuse in several different child care establishments? Police admits that police reports had been made since 2011 – why did the police act sooner?

The fact that the police operation was called ‘Ops Global’ also does not augur well, as the name relates to an action against GIBSH, for suspected criminal activities other than child abuse. Was it really about crimes against children, or was it all the time an action against GIBSH? Prime Minister Anwar must clarify.

PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan bravely asks a relevant question as to whether what is happening is by reason ‘…reckless sentiments, prejudices, business rivalries, or political agendas….’ He rightly expresses worry about injustices that may befall ‘its innocent members or on the legitimate, law-abiding, and beneficial aspects of GISBH’s activities’. (FMT, 22/9/2024 )To date, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has yet to specifically respond to these concerns.

Best for Investigation and Prosecution of Crimes Against Children be SEPARATED from investigations of crimes against Syariah Law?

Allegations of child abuse naturally creates serious concern, and anger amongst every Malaysians and demands immediate action.

Likewise, allegations of religious deviation results in anger amongst Muslims in Malaysia

MADPET is of the view that to ensure professionalism in investigation and administration of criminal justice, these crimes should best be acted on separately, without allowing anger or prejudice about religious deviation to affect investigations of crimes against children, noting always presumption of innocence until proven guilty after a fair trial in court.

Maybe, the police ought to focus on the crimes against children, and any other rimes like AMLA Act crimes, and leave the investigation of allegations of religious deviants or crimes of Muslims as contained in Syariah criminal laws to Islamic law enforcers.

Prejudice and anger linked to alleged crimes of religious deviants can risk the professional investigation of other crimes, not linked to religion.

Prejudices, be it based on ethnicity, religion, class or gender, should never affect or even compromise professional investigation and prosecution of crimes.

MADPET calls for a professional and unbiased investigations against the alleged suspects;

MADPET calls for all alleged suspects, after investigation, to be Charged and Accorded a Fair Trial. Detention Without Trial Laws should never be used again, as was done in the 1994 crackdown on Al-Arqam.

MADPET calls for the end to offers of Compound to suspects of crimes affecting children, corruption, abuse of powers and/or offences under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act [AMLA Act}. Only a conviction after a fair trial would prove guilt, and show no abuse on the part of the government and law enforcement agencies.

MADPET calls for a repeal of provisions Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act [AMLA Act} and other laws that allows enforcement agencies to issue pre-conviction ORDERS that will affect suspects and others, and the power to issue any such Orders should only be given to Courts. Persons affected by such orders should be allowed to participate in such court hearings, apply for revocation and variation, and also the right to appeal such orders.

MADPET also ask for the enactment of a Criminal Compensation Act, that will compensate victims of false arrest, detention, baseless prosecution and other damage causing pre-conviction actions like freezing of accounts, closure of business, etc., and

MADPET calls for the establishment of Royal Commission of Inquiry, as previously proposed by Child Rights Commissioner and G25, but to look at all aspects of the actions taken against GIBSH and other persons.

 

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)