Media Statement – 20/9/2026
Repeal Section 44 and provisions of AMLA Law that allows Mere Officers of Enforcement Agency to Issue Order to Freeze Bank Accounts – Only Judges Should Be Allowed to Issue Such Orders Affecting Suspects/Entities Who Have Yet to Be Proven Guilty in Court
Presumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty – And END Pre-Conviction Punishments
It was reported that Human Rights Defenders and their organizations are now falling victim to these unjust ‘account freezing’ laws whereby bank accounts of MANDIRI, HAYAT, Dobby Chew and Amir Hariri Abd Hadi have been frozen. Previous reported victims this same law include GISBH (Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings Sdn. Bhd.)
It was also just reported that ‘NGOs MANDIRI and HAYAT said nearly 20 officers from the anti-money laundering unit raided their new shared office to seize organizational documents.’ (Malaysiakini, 18/9/2026). The State crackdown on Human Rights Defender organizations and HR Defenders is a matter of great concern
Abolish Law Allowing Mere Officers to FREEZE Bank Accounts – COURT orders needed
The freezing of bank accounts of persons and entities now under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) is based on simply orders of an officer of enforcement agencies, and without even a COURT order.
Further, Section 44A (Variation or revocation of order to freeze property) provides that the order can be varied and even revoked on including application of victims by simply ‘an officer senior in rank to the officer who issued the order’ which is ABSURD, and this provision can also be used to deny speedy access to courts because generally all process of appeal provided by law must be complied with first. ONLY after compliance with procedures in the Act, can victims access the Courts.
Enforcement agencies generally investigate and secure evidence, and then it is usually the Public Prosecutor that checks and evaluates the evidence to determines whether it is sufficient to prove guilt, and, if so, then only can the accused be charged in court. Public Prosecutor also verifies and approves other actions like compound offers.
Then, after a Fair Trial, it is the Courts and JUDGES that will determine whether prosecution have managed to proof guilt beyond reasonable doubt that will result in conviction and an appropriate sentence.
AMLATFPUAA Act thus is a contradiction of the norm, when a mere officer of an enforcement agency is empowered to issue an order freezing bank accounts, and seizing property. Even the prosecution does not come into the picture to verify and confirm such an order can be made.
This power to freeze bank accounts and/or seize property should never be a power given to any officer of the enforcement agency or investigation body, but rightly it should always be with the COURTS that determines that all required conditions are satisfied before deciding to issue an order to freeze bank accounts or seize property at this early stage because the alleged victim is yet to be charged, or more importantly found guilty after a fair trial. In this case, the Human Rights Defenders have not even been called in for investigation.
Rationale to prevent money being dissipated out of the Court’s jurisdiction?
The object of bank account freezing laws is presumably to prevent fruits of the crime or ‘dirty money’ being dissipated or send out of the country before the trial is over. If this happens, it becomes almost impossible to recover it.
This happened in the case of former Prime Minister Najib Razak, when about RM2 billion in Najib’s account was send out of Malaysia.
So, the primary concern is to PREVENT the dissipation beyond the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts making recovery difficult. In the case of Najib, the proof that this money dissipated was ‘fruits of a crime’ was only confirmed by the Courts when Najib was found guilty on Dec 26 2025 by the High Court, and was sentenced to 15 years in jail and fined RM13.4 billion after he was found guilty of all counts of abuse of power and 21 money laundering charges involving RM2.28 billion in 1MDB funds.
Thus, there is rationale for preventing ‘dirty monies’ moving out from the jurisdiction of Malaysian Courts, but it also can invite gross miscarriage of justice if at the end of the day, the victims are found to be not guilty. Do we just need law that prevents the dissipation of such monies/property from Malaysia, rather than freezing entire accounts?
Thus, the decision to freeze accounts should never rest simply on an ordinary officer of an enforcement agency but must be decided by the Courts, which should also allow victims the right to be heard.
Care must be taken not to freeze money that will affect or ‘kill’ a business/organization or an individual’s wellbeing noting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court.
COURT orders needed for arrest/search should also be required for freezing of bank accounts orders
Even for arrest and search in Malaysia, the Court comes in to prevent abuse by requirement that a WARRANT is required for arrest or search. This is a needed check and balance, where the Magistrate/Judge will judiciously consider whether the legal requirements for an arrest or search warrant is satisfied before a warrant is issued. If not, no warrant will be issued. Likewise, for detention beyond 24 hours, a Magistrate’s remand order is needed.
Likewise, it should JUSTLY be the same for cases of ORDERS for account freezing or property seizure under AMLATFPUAA Act.
Judges will decide judiciously whether to legally issue such orders. This is very important also because of the serious implications that may follow these pre-charging and pre-conviction orders that may effectively ‘kill’ organizations/businesses/entities and also cause serious irreparable harm and injustice to individuals affected.
It is shocking that now even Human Rights Defenders personally, and Malaysian Human Rights Organizations have fallen prey to these draconian provisions including Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) and other bad provisions in PART Vi Freezing, Seizure and Forfeiture of the AMLATFPUAA Act.
HR Defenders and Organizations is falling victim to orders to freeze accounts
It was reported that the personal bank accounts of Human Rights Defenders Dobby Chew and Amir Hariri Abd Hadi, and the bank accounts of HR groups HAYAT and MANDIRI have been frozen (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026).
MANDIRI is a youth-led civil society organization founded in 2024 to empower young people and strengthen democratic participation in Malaysia.
HAYAT is human rights and advocacy organization focused on criminal justice reform, decarceration, restorative justice and anti-death penalty.
Pre-Conviction Account Freezing Orders can KILL Businesses/Organizations
We recall that similarly in 2024 the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) had frozen a total of 206 accounts linked to GISB Holdings (GISBH), valued at more than RM1.35 million to date, where ‘…the freezing of accounts and assets related to GISBH was also carried out under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) (Act 613)...’.(Malay Mail, 3/10/2024). In that case of GISBH, there has been yet no report that GUILT has been proven in Court after a Fair Trial that would validate the freezing of these bank accounts and seizure of property.
We are also aware of the impact on the businesses allegedly linked to GISBH, where in many towns all around Malaysia, GISBH linked businesses have already been closed down even though the proof of GUILT after a Fair Trial is yet to happen.
Even if at the end of the day, it is determined that they are not GUILTY – the freezing of bank accounts and the seizure of property may never be able to overturn the consequences.
Businesses may be killed, and individuals may even lose homes/cars simply because the accounts were frozen – and there was no money to even settle loan obligations.
Freezing Bank Account impact on businesses/organizations and individuals
The freezing of bank accounts of organizations or business entities literally mean the ‘killing’ of such entities, as worker wages cannot be paid, rent and utility bills cannot be paid, and normal operations cannot continue without monies.
When an individual person’s bank account is frozen, it also means that a person is at risk at losing homes, cars and other property which may be lost because the loan obligations simply cannot be settled.
Thus, the power to prematurely freeze accounts and seize property is MOST DRACONIAN when it happens even before the ‘suspects’ are charged in court for their alleged crimes.
GROSS injustice happens when at the end of the day, the alleged suspects are not even charged in court, and if charged, and then found NOT Guilty.
The law also states in section 44(6) that ‘…An enforcement agency shall not be liable for any damages or cost arising directly or indirectly from the making of an order under this section unless it can be proved that the order under subsection (1) was not made in good faith…’
What it means is that the victim has the onerous task of proving ‘lack of good faith’? Should not the wrongful freezing of accounts, proven ultimately at the trial, be sufficient for the victim to receive just compensations and damages from the government?
In the recent case, involving the Human Rights Defenders and their organizations, it was reported that they were not even being investigated when their bank accounts were frozen. ‘“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.” (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026)
Now, HR Defenders groups may be ‘killed’ even before their GUILT is proven in court, and that is not acceptable. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the Government must protect HR Defenders, and ensure these organizations are not subdued.
WHY COURTS orders needed to prevent abuse?
Section 44(1) states that ‘…an enforcement agency may issue an order to freeze any property of any person, any terrorist property or proliferator property, as the case may be, wherever the property may be, and whether the property is in his possession, under his control or due from any source to him, if- (a) an investigation with regard to an unlawful activity has commenced against that person; and (b) either- (i) the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under subsection 4(1) or 4A(2), a terrorism financing offence or a restricted activity financing offence has been or is being or is about to be committed by that person; or (ii) the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the instrumentalities of an offence.
Hence, before any ‘account freezing order’ there must already be an investigation commenced, and most importantly there must be REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT that the offence has been committed or about to be committed, OR that the property to be frozen/seized are fruits of the crime before bank accounts can be frozen.
It is only JUST and reasonable that Courts determine whether there is REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT and the relevant conditions are complied with before Orders to freeze accounts or seize property are made. There must be sufficient evidence to prove reasonable grounds to the Courts – not mere suspicion but REASONABLE suspicion. The law that now empowers mere officers in an enforcement agency, who is investigating the crime, to issue account freezing orders must be abolished.
In the recent case, involving the Human Rights Defenders and their organization, it was reported that they were kept in the dark. ‘“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.” (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026) So, has investigation even been commenced when the victims are yet to be called in to be investigated? What is the CRIME being investigated?
In issuing such account freezing orders at this stage where GUILT is yet to be proven after a FAIR TRIAL, it should best not affect the running of business or activities of the organizations, and/or must take into account monies needed by individuals to continue their life normally. This is CRUCIAL for any orders at this stage as guilt after a fair trial is yet to be establish, and we have to be true to the legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court.
The amended law could allow the enforcement agency or prosecution to speedily allowed to obtain an ex-parte order, but then victims should have the right to challenge and/or vary the order in an inter-parte hearing soon after usually within 14 days.
Is the ‘freezing of accounts’ because of a politician’s allegations?
So why have the accounts been frozen in these HR Defender’s cases? Is it connected to what a PKR Youth chief Kamil Munim of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s party allegedly claimed that funds were connected to political movements, including the financing of social media operations and the mobilization of street protests aimed at creating anti-government sentiment under the guise of democracy and human rights? ( FMT, 17/5/2026). No clear report indicating what exactly prompted the issuance of the bank account freezing orders against these HR Defenders?
In Malaysia, HRD Organizations like HAYAT and MANDIRI, may be receiving foreign funding but everything usually are reported to the authorities as required by law. Are they receiving money from organizations that Malaysia has specifically prohibited receiving money from? OR is this action by State mere reactions to Human Rights Groups that have been critical about Malaysian government led by PM Anwar in terms of human rights and justice issues?
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls for the REPEAL of Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) that now also allows an officer of the enforcement agency ALONE, with NO COURT ORDER, to issue an order on its own to freeze any property of any person, with no prior notice or right to be heard accorded to persons/entities affected;
Alternatively, MADPET calls for an amendment of Section 44(1) requiring a Court Order before bank accounts are frozen or properties seized. Victims will have the right to be heard at inter-parte hearings, that should happen fast, within 14 days or less.
As in remand applications, where Magistrate order needed for remand beyond 24 hours, and warrants are required for arrests and search, the Judiciary plays an important role to prevent abuse and mistakes by law enforcement agencies. Thus, MADPET calls for the need of a COURT order before accounts are frozen or properties seized.
MADPET also calls that even if accounts are frozen, it must never affect the ordinary running and operation of the organization/business – because it will be seen as a GROSS INJUSTICE more so since these orders are pre-conviction orders and there is a possibility that Courts may eventually find that no crime was committed. It is wrong for workers to lose wages and jobs, and other irrevocable consequences to happen because of such pre-conviction orders, and in the case of these HR Defender groups and persons even before they have been charged in court.
If the allegations are concerning funds from certain entities, then only those funds should be affected by any freezing orders and not ALL the funds coming from other sources and sometimes also from the Malaysian public.
Malaysia must acknowledge Human Rights Defenders and their organizations, which today has also been acknowledged by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which was adopted by consensus by State and its leaders who do or say things that are in violation of Human Rights.
It is a folly for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Malaysian Government to always expect that Human Rights Defenders will always ‘blindly’ support the government. HRDs will voice out and highlight HR violations, and even participate in peaceful assemblies and other actions.
MADPET also calls on Malaysia to end ‘attacks’ on HR Defenders. MADPET ask for the government to provide specific details about the alleged crimes committed by HAYAT, MANDIRI and the affected HR Defenders.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
######
SNAPSHOT | Cops raid Mandiri, Hayat office; Hadi ready to produce evidence on alleged US plot
KINI SNAPSHOT | What’s going on in the news today, with updates at 9am, 2pm, 6pm, and 9pm.
9pm
Police raid
- NGOs Mandiri and Hayat said nearly 20 officers from the anti-money laundering unit raided their new shared office to seize organisational documents.
In a joint statement, the groups said they had fully cooperated but were not given an explanation for the investigation.
They handed over various audit, registration, staff, payroll, tax, financial and banking documents, as well as a computer and a pendrive containing Hayat’s financial information.
/file/attachments/orphans/Mandiri-PusatPembangunanRakyatsdd_758252.jpg)
They said Mandiri’s lawyer requested to meet the investigating officer for further clarification, but were informed that the latter was unable to come after an hour’s wait.
“Mandiri and Hayat wish to assert that we have committed no crime and maintain our position that this investigation constitutes a form of ongoing pressure against Mandiri, Hayat, and civil society organisations,” they claimed. - Malaysiakini, 18/9/2026
'Blocked bank accounts, travel ban': Mandiri cries intimidation, LFL slams 'oppressive' crackdown
Mandiri has claimed that bank accounts belonging to the NGO and its leaders have been blocked, a week after two of its figures were informed of travel restrictions preventing them from leaving the nation.
The development follows travel bans issued against several Bersih activists, who had sounded the alarm over a supposedly “worrying precedent” for civil society organisations in Malaysia after they were barred from entering Sabah.
In a statement last night, Mandiri executive director Amir Hariri Abd Hadi said he had received news regarding a ban on him leaving the country last week, while Mandiri financial director Dobby Chew faced trouble when returning from Jakarta.
While Chew was informed that there was a “restriction from Bukit Aman” before finally being allowed to enter Malaysia, Amir (above) insisted that neither of the duo had been contacted or given reasons for the alleged bans against them.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/03/0013fd3fc6f18a6a208beff2cba00518.jpg)
He further asserted that his and Chew’s (above) personal bank accounts, as well as those belonging to Mandiri and Hayat, an NGO managed by Chew, were also blocked yesterday.
“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.
“Mandiri once again urges the authorities to provide an explanation for these restrictions and immediately revoke them.
“Mandiri is always ready to be investigated should there be any need and will give full cooperation to the police and authorities,” Amir said.
Pressure on govt critics
He insisted that such restrictions, allegedly without any notification or explanation, are “clearly a form of continuous intimidation used to pressure those who do not align with the government”.
“As a civil society organisation, Mandiri is not involved in any political manoeuvrings, or as previously accused, supposedly working to overthrow Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim,” Amir said.
He is believed to be referring to PKR Youth’s previous call for authorities to investigate the youth-based organisation for an alleged threat to national security - an accusation which Mandiri has denied.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2025/06/bc085ae12db61948f55c07859777c94a.jpg)
“The fall and rise of political parties and politicians are determined by the people.
“The demands from our campaigns are the same demands fought for together with organisations and individuals who are now in government, back when they were on the opposition bench,” Amir added.
Amir, a former Muda secretary-general, today confirmed being told that the restriction on his personal bank account was executed under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which allows law enforcement officers to freeze a person's property during an ongoing investigation.
However, he reiterated that neither he nor Chew, who is also a Muda vice-president, has been summoned by the police to facilitate their probes yet.
LFL fires a salvo
In a separate statement today, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) condemned the account freezes and travel bans against Mandiri and its leaders as “unlawful, unreasonable, oppressive, and authoritarian”.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/07/3ae68870c1680d63809b3ef3f23bf7c1.jpg)
Noting that Mandiri, Amir, and Chew are well known for their work in youth empowerment, human rights, and peaceful democratic change, LFL coordinator Rania Aljunied (above) labelled the actions against them as being “clearly calculated to intimidate and silence”.
Highlighting that the right to criticise the government is protected under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, she said LFL is “particularly disappointed” with Pakatan Harapan.
“Harapan, which forms the backbone of the government today and had promised reform and democracy, has condoned these oppressive actions by the authorities with their silence and complicity.
“Harapan should remember it was the long-standing struggles and efforts of principled and committed civil society organisations like Mandiri that paved the way for it to obtain federal power,” she added. - Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026
PKR Youth urges probe into alleged foreign funding linked to political activities
Its chief Kamil Munim claims the funds were used to finance anti-government protests and social media operations.
In a statement, PKR Youth chief Kamil Munim claimed the funds were connected to political movements, including the financing of social media operations and the mobilisation of street protests aimed at creating anti-government sentiment under the guise of democracy and human rights.
Kamil cited reports alleging that a US-based foundation had channelled more than RM1.5 million to a local company linked to a NGO through several transactions between November 2024 and June 2025.
He also referred to allegations that the foundation made seven transactions amounting to more than RM680,000 to the NGO’s executive director, and several other people linked to the NGO, between 2024 and 2025.
Noting that Malaysia is currently facing increasingly challenging global economic conditions, Kamil said any effort at destabilising the country through foreign funding and systematic political manipulation must be stopped immediately before it becomes a greater threat to the nation’s future.
“If these allegations are true, then this is an extremely dangerous matter. Malaysia must never become a testing ground for foreign powers seeking to shape the country’s political landscape through local proxies,” he said.
“Such interference not only erodes national sovereignty, but also has the potential to trigger political instability that would ultimately have a direct impact on the economy, investor confidence and the country’s stability.”
Kamil called on the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara Malaysia, and related security agencies to immediately conduct a comprehensive investigation into all parties linked to the revelations.
On Friday, youth group Mandiri denied that it took foreign funds to help bring down Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and that it is acting as a proxy for former PKR deputy president Rafizi Ramli.
The group was responding to a police report about a viral video alleging that over RM1.5 million in foreign funds was channelled from a US group called Tides Foundation to Mandiri. - FMT, 17/5/2026
