Is Justice Turning Into a Toll Road? [on Macau Scams]
A businessman pays RM10 million and 26 charges vanish. When should the State take the money, and when should it explain itself?
Who Gets to Buy Their Way Out of a Money-Laundering Charge?
This article concerns matters of public policy and publicly reported events. It makes no finding, and alleges no guilt, against any named person. A charge is an allegation. Guilt is decided by a court — not by a headline, a WhatsApp forward, or a commentator with strong opinions and a weak internet connection.
The ‘Macau Scam’
“Macau scam” is a phrase that has taken on a life of its own in Malaysia.
It sounds, at first hearing, like a disappointing holiday.
Perhaps a broken air-conditioner, a middling buffet, and an auntie insisting the luck turns after the third bowl of soup.
It is nothing so harmless.
A Macau scam is a fraud conducted by telephone or online.
A caller poses as a policeman, a bank officer, a court official, a customs officer — someone with an urgent voice and an official-sounding title.
The victim is told he has committed a crime, or that his bank account is linked to wrongdoing.
The solution offered is always the same: transfer the money to a “safe account”, immediately.1Bank Simpanan Nasional, ‘Macau Scam’ <https://www.bsn.com.my/page/macau-scam> accessed 9 August 2026; Bank Negara Malaysia, ‘Macau Scam’ <https://www.bnm.gov.my/macauscam> accessed 9 August 2026.
The account, needless to say, is safe only for the scammer.
Nobody is entirely sure where the name came from.2Macao News, ‘What Is the Macau Scam?’ (17 June 2025) <https://macaonews.org/features/macau-scam/> accessed 9 August 2026.
It is a label, not a passport.
Not every scammer operates from Macau, and Macau bears no responsibility for the fictional fourteen kilograms of trouble discovered, with great drama, in a stranger’s imaginary suitcase.
The victims, however, are entirely real.
Pensioners. Small traders. Students trying to get through an ordinary Tuesday.
Fraud succeeds not because its victims are foolish, but because fear moves quickly, and sensible people move with it.
That is why the law’s response to fraud, and to the laundering of its proceeds, matters so much.
It is not a technicality for lawyers with a fondness for ring-binders. It is a question of whether wrongdoing has consequences.
Which brings us to Nicky Liow
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has confirmed that twenty-six money-laundering charges against the businessman were withdrawn, after his lawyers made representations under section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.3Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613), s 92.
The AGC says it considered the evidence, accepted a compound of RM10 million paid on 29 May 2023, and ordered assets and a bond forfeited.4Reported in Malay Mail, ‘AGC: Nicky Liow Made RM10m Payment to Compound 26 Money Laundering Charges’ (7 August 2026) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/08/07/agc-drops-26-moneylaundering-charges-after-nicky-liow-settles-with-rm10m-compound/230527> accessed 9 August 2026.
The charges were then withdrawn.
Those are the reported facts, and they must be stated fairly.
It would be wrong to say Mr Liow was proved guilty. He was not.
It would be equally wrong to suggest, without evidence, that money or influence caused this outcome.
A question mark is not a shield.
If a writer asks, “did he buy his freedom?”, a reader may hear it as an assertion all the same.
The law is more interested in what the ordinary reader understands than in the punctuation the writer hides behind.
Still, the public may ask questions. It should
The first question answers itself. The Attorney-General holds constitutional discretion to institute, conduct, or discontinue criminal proceedings, and the statute gives him power to compound certain offences.5Federal Constitution of Malaysia, art 145(3); Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s 92.
That power plainly exists.
The harder question is this: when should the State use it, in a case of this scale?
A compound is not, of itself, a scandal. It can be a sensible tool.
The criminal justice system has finite prosecutors, finite courtrooms, and — one suspects — a permanently short supply of photocopying paper.
A complex financial trial can take years; witnesses vanish, documents scatter across jurisdictions, and evidence grows stale before it reaches a witness box.
A lawful compound can recover money quickly, avoid a weak trial, and free investigators for the next case.
We should resist the film-script version of criminal justice, in which a lone detective discovers the truth at 4.55 pm, moments before the credits roll.
Real cases are slower, messier, and far less photogenic.
But efficiency is not the only value a justice system owes its public.
A trial does more than collect money. It tests evidence, in the open, before a judge who must decide contested facts.
It tells the public how the money moved, and who was hurt.
It warns the next fraudster that the worst outcome is not simply an invoice, payable within fourteen days.
This is where public unease begins
When a serious case ends in a payment, some will ask whether the law has become a toll road — one lane for those with nothing, a faster lane for those who can afford the exit.
That question does not prove favouritism in any particular case. But it explains why transparency is not optional.
In law, appearance is not everything.
In public confidence, appearance is often where everything begins
The Securities Commission already publishes its list of compounded cases: the offender, the provision, the facts, the sum paid.6Securities Commission Malaysia, ‘Cases Compounded in 2023’ (1 November 2024) <https://www.sc.com.my/regulation/enforcement/actions/cases-compounded/cases-compounded-in-2023> accessed 9 August 2026.
The sky has not fallen. Civilisation continues.
If this is possible for smaller enforcement matters, why not for charges that have already reached open court, in cases of alleged large-scale fraud?
Other jurisdictions offer a useful, if imperfect, comparison
The United Kingdom’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or DPA, is not a quiet bargain struck over particularly good coffee. It follows a published Code of Practice, and a judge must approve it — satisfied its terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate.7Crime and Courts Act 2013, sch 17; Crown Prosecution Service, Deferred Prosecution Agreements Code of Practice <https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/deferred-prosecution-agreements-code-practice> accessed 9 August 2026.
In the Airbus DPA, the Serious Fraud Office published the agreement, the statement of facts, and the judgment approving it — a settlement examined in daylight rather than taken on trust.8Serious Fraud Office, ‘SFO Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Airbus’ (2 March 2023) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfo-deferred-prosecution-agreement-with-airbus> accessed 9 August 2026; Serious Fraud Office v Airbus SE [2020] EW Misc 4 (CC).
That is the true comparison worth making — not “should Malaysia copy Britain”, but what makes a settlement credible?
Four safeguards suggest themselves
Published guidelines for compounding serious financial offences, so the relevant factors — strength of evidence, number of victims, value recovered, co-operation — are known in advance, not guessed at afterwards.
A concise public statement whenever a filed charge is compounded and withdrawn: the legal basis, the sum, the assets forfeited, whether other inquiries continue. Nothing need be revealed that harms an ongoing investigation.
An independent internal review for major settlements — not a public inquisition, but a senior panel giving written reasons, protecting prosecutors from the suspicion that big decisions are made on nobody’s authority but their own.
Annual public statistics: how many serious cases compounded, how much recovered, how many prosecuted to conclusion.
Without data, public debate becomes a contest between slogans — and slogans, like mosquitoes, breed fastest in stagnant water.
None of this accuses Mr Liow of anything. None of it denies that the AGC holds real legal powers, or that its resources are finite.
It asks for something simpler: a justice system able to explain itself
The law must be firm against fraud, and fair to the accused.
It must let prosecutors make difficult calls, while never allowing the reasonable impression that criminal accountability depends on the depth of one’s pocket.
A compound may be lawful. It may even be wise.
But in a case of this size, it should never look like a receipt for the quiet disappearance of public accountability.
∞§∞
This article is written for a general readership and does not constitute technical or legal advice. Readers with legal questions are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.
The author thanks KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela, and Lydia Jaynthi at GK Legal. Our gratitude to —— of Unsplash for the image.
Claude, Anthropic’s AI, smoothed the drafting; Perplexity Pro checked the facts. The argument, the views, and the errors remain the author’s.
@Copyright reserved.
All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com.
