The admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering offences: a Malaysian perspective

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the current legal position on the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough exploratory analytical analysis signifies that such illegally obtained evidence from money laundering offences is admissible, provided it does not undermine the administration of justice or the right to a fair trial. Findings - By virtue of the lack of written or codified rules governing the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering, the rule of admissibility remains the primary foundational principle for the governance of the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases. Originality/value - The Malaysian Criminal Justice System has historically relied on the long-standing admissibility principles to admit and exclude illegally obtained evidence. For decades, courts have used their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and they have further demonstrated to use the same discretion to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Evidence obtained illegally but if relevant to the matter in issue is deemed admissible. Evidence derived from an act associated with unlawful activities or a predicate offence in money laundering may be obtained illegally, which may influence the prosecution case and conversely, defend the accused’s rights to a fair trial.