KUALA LUMPUR – Could Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings’ (GISBH) affiliates, over 300 of whom have been detained over alleged money laundering and human trafficking activities, potentially face charges as members of an organised crime group?
With approximately 10,000 members nationwide, 400 business outlets in 20 countries, and 5,000 employees, police previously affirmed that its investigations into GISBH are veering toward the organised crime syndicate route.
While GISBH chief executive officer Datuk Nasiruddin Mohd Ali has been remanded to assist with human trafficking probes, another 34 members have also been detained under the contentious Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).
Several individuals understood to be caretakers in welfare homes raided by police since September 11 have also faced charges in court for a variety of offences including child abuse and criminal intimidation.
Considering the serious nature of the offences levelled against GISBH, legal expert Srimurugan Alagan posited that the group’s members could be prosecuted as members of an organised crime unit as its structure and alleged misdeeds align with the legal definition of an organised crime group.
He highlighted that Section 130U of the Penal Code details that an organised criminal group refers to a group of two or more persons acting in concert to commit serious offences to obtain, whether directly or indirectly, “material benefit, power or influence”.
“Serious offence” is defined in the Penal Code as an offence punishable with an imprisonment term of ten years or more.
“(In the case of GISBH), there is a modus operandi (as) the company runs charitable homes in various parts of the country (and) they are doing it as part of some sort of teaching,” Srimurugan, who is also the author of various legal textbooks, told Scoop.
“The way their business is structured to be self-sustaining, it fits the definition of an organised crime group,” he added, noting that Penal Code provisions on organised crime “coexist” with the Sosma Act as the latter applies to security offences including those involving organised crime groups.
As the relevant Penal Code sections on organised crime groups lay down possible fines and various imprisonment terms of up to thirty years, punishments imposed for individual offences could be compounded if criminals are found to have involvement in such syndicates.
Additionally, Section 130ZC covers enhanced penalties for offences committed by an organised criminal group or its members, with those convicted of serious offences under any written law to be punished with a “twice as long” imprisonment term and also be liable to whipping.
When contacted by Scoop, former deputy public prosecutor Farhan Read referenced the legal doctrine of “common intention”, which indicates that an individual can be held responsible for offences they played a role in, even if they were not the main offender.
Section 34 of the Penal Code upholds that when a criminal act is done by several persons to further the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by one individual alone.
“(In terms of prosecution against organised crime groups), it could be something evidentiary where if a person is acting in concert (with other group members) and you’re part of this organisation, your liability is deemed.”
He added that in instances of criminal gangs, police will often look for identifying marks, such as tattoos, to establish suspected individuals’ links with such gangs.
In GISBH’s case, Farhan, who is a practising criminal defence lawyer, said such marks could come in the form of owning common materials and the detection of bank transactions from other recognised GISBH figures.
Meanwhile, lawyer Wilson Wong asserted that while prosecutors could potentially go after GISBH for being an organised crime group, it is more likely that charges brought against GISBH will focus on their offences under specific acts.
In particular, he referenced the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla) and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (Atipsom).
“With the number of bank accounts frozen by police thus far (as part of its probe into GISBH), it will raise a lot of questions, especially to the public…from what I see so far, for the understanding of the public, (GISBH) can be called an organised crime group,” he said.
However, he cautioned against using the label prematurely before the completion of police investigations and charges being pressed against GISBH and its members in court as the term covers various criminal entities, including gangsters.
Wong said investigations under the Amla and Atipsom Act are very rarely easy as most criminal syndicates accused of offences under the laws tend to “work in the shadows”, with the owners of bank accounts associated with the groups unlikely to be a syndicates’ main leader.
“Big bosses will never go down to the battlefield – it will always be the people they’ve assigned to manage these accounts for them,” he said, adding that when it comes to money-related offences, authorities usually have a hard time proving elements of a crime.
On September 23, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain said police had frozen about RM2.75 million worth of assets linked to GISBH, with the value consisting of RM882,795.95 in funds from 138 frozen bank accounts while another RM1.87 million is the estimated value of 22 automobiles of various types.
About two weeks later, on October 3, Razarudin said police’s Anti-Money Laundering Unit had frozen another GISBH-linked 205 accounts involving RM1.35 million and an account with US$1,344.26. – October 9, 2024