‘Immigration Act rule not a standalone’

PETALING JAYA: The provision to freeze assets and bank accounts is not a standalone under Section 56(1) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, says Immigration Depart­ment director-general Datuk Seri Mustafar Ali.

Responding to The Star, he said the provision was tied together with the second schedule in the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) 2001.

The Immigration Depart­ment is expected to explain the matter today together with a list of law provisions.

Among the offences listed in the second schedule of the Act were those from the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Atipsom) Act 2007.

A check on Section 44(1) of the AMLA states that “an enforcement agency may issue an order to freeze any property of any person if an investigation of an unlawful activity has commenced against that person and if the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was from the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the instrumentalities of an offence”.

A source from the Immigration Department told mStar Online that other related provisions were from the Passports Act 1966.

The source added that the department had received countless phone calls and e-mails on objections and dissatisfaction among employers and industry associations.

Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Jaha­berdeen Mohamed Yunoos said to the best of his knowledge, Section 56(1) of the Immigration Act had nothing to do with the freezing of accounts or assets.

He added that there was only Section 44 of the Act, which touched on the detention of vessels or aircraft believed to have ferried illegal immigrants.

“But it is possible for the Immig­ration Department to freeze the accounts of suspects using AMLA.

“The act of trafficking is illegal, so the proceeds of the business (which uses illegal foreign workers) are illegal and to use that money is tantamount to money laundering,” he said when contacted.

Bar Council Human Rights Committee co-chairman Andrew Khoo said the freezing could be done under Section 44 of AMLA, but only if a person was being investigated for the possible commission of a “serious offence” as defined in the second schedule of the Act.

“There is no section of the Immigration Act included in the definition of ‘serious offence’ in the second schedule of AMLA,” he said.

“What is included are offences for trafficking in persons or smuggling of migrants. So, if you hire people who have been trafficked or migrants who have been smuggled, then your assets could be frozen – but only if you are under investigation.

“If you are not charged within 90 days of the date of the freezing order, the order lapses unless extended.”