Malaysia has continued to proactively enhance its legal framework for combating terrorism financing as a phenomenal response to the global war against terrorism. This paper revisits the provisions relating to anti-terrorism financing in the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA), and the recent amendment made to the Act in 2014, as well as the Penal Code of Malaysia. While this study focuses on Anti-Terrorism Laws in Malaysia, AMLATFA forms the crux of the discussion in the light of current developments in anti-terrorism legislation in Malaysia. A brief Islamic legal perspective on anti-terrorism financing is given in the light of specific provisions of AMLATFA and the Penal Code. The paper finds that Malaysia is keeping up with the global developments in Anti-Terrorism Financing laws and this has helped it to maintain a good image in the global world as a country that is ready to combat terrorism generally and terrorism financing specifically. With the emerging threats of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) in Malaysia and the world at large, there is no better time than now to come up with a more comprehensive law such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 to complement existing legislations on terrorism financing

No abstract

is a professor of law in the Department of Civil Law at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Her areas of expertise are comparative banking law and the legal aspects of money laundering and terrorism financing. She has conducted numerous training courses in both areas of law to banks as well as regulatory and enforcement bodies. She has an LLM and PhD from Warwick University, England. She is also an Advocate and Solicitor in the High Court in Malaya.ABSTRACT As a result of the existence of the 'Forty Recommendations', all countries are expected to have anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing legislation and regulations. Because most national legislation came into being due to the existence of the Recommendations, the laws of all countries ought to be in pari materia with each other. To illustrate this fact, this article will compare United Kingdom and Malaysia legislation and regulation and how they match each other. The focus is on banks because although money launderers use many methods to clean their dirty money, the banking system is still a popular way to launder money. The article will look at Part 4 of the Malaysian Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) and its UK equivalent. It can be seen that despite banks being subject to regulation for at least 20 years, banks in countries such as the United Kingdom are still being given huge fines for not having adequate anti-money laundering procedures.

No abstract

No abstract