INTER-AGENCY WORKING GROUP ON
INTELLIGENCE, INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS AND
JOINT OPERATIONS
Rahimah Ma’aruf *I. INTRODUCTION
Corruption remains a challenging crime to investigate and prosecute. The crime has
been a win-win situation in which the bribe giver and receiver both benefit from the crime.
Corruption schemes have evolved over the years, and the modi operandi are becoming
more difficult to detect, as they are concealed through multiple parties embedded throughdeep-rooted systems. Moreover, corruption activities have become more transnational,
where obtaining and securing evidence across borders has constrained the ability of anticorruption agencies to investigate. Therefore, anti-corruption agencies now have tomobilize all sorts of endeavours not only nationally but internationally. The need forinternational cooperation has been of paramount importance to national strategies in orderto successfully fight the battle against corruption.
Over the years, the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been successful in combating crossborder corruption cases between Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia through close
cooperation with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. Issues and challenges havebeen resolved through bilateral negotiations and close cooperation between both agencies.
This was achieved through the formation of the Working Group (WG) in matters pertaining
to operations, intelligence and investigations.
II. WORKING GROUP MECHANISM ON INTELLIGENCE, INVESTIGATIVE
MATTERS AND JOINT OPERATIONSIn July 2002, Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia through their respective anti-corruption
agencies – the Anti-Corruption Bureau Brunei Darussalam and the Anti-Corruption
Agency Malaysia (now known as Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, or MACC) –bilaterally formed a Working Group Committee in Operational, Investigative andIntelligence Aspects to collaborate in the area of investigation, intelligence, law, prevention,inspection, consultancy and training. Through these bilateral discussions, both agencies
recognized that they face common challenges and obstacles, particularly in the areas ofenforcement and investigation. The Working Group Members are composed of officers
directly involved in bilateral cooperation for investigation and intelligence operations
assignments.
The WG has been used as a channel to facilitate requests for mutual assistance between
both agencies in areas of intelligence, investigation and operation. Through this mechanism,
the agencies were able to ease the investigation work process for corruption cases between
the two countries, especially cross-border corruption. The WG also serves as a platform to*

Senior Special Investigator, Investigation Section, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Brunei Darussalam.

- 29 -- 31 -discuss success and failures of each agency as well as for exchanging best practices on
issues associated with investigation and intelligence work. Through the sharing ofknowledge, both agencies were able to develop their policy strategies and to furtherenhance their workflows in investigation, intelligence and operation aspects.
A. Implementation Mechanism for Mutual Assistance in Operations, Investigation
and Intelligence
As agreed by the two agencies, the Implementation Mechanism for Mutual Assistancein Operation, Investigation and Intelligence Operations Working Group includes thefollowing:i.

Roles of WG Investigation and Intelligence- Act as an intermediary for two agencies in receiving and coordinating requests
for mutual assistance and providing feedback on mutual assistance- To organize discussion on mutual assistance when requiredii.

Scope and Types of Assistance- Intelligence: Exchanging of intelligence reports / information requested- Investigation: Recording statements of witnesses or suspects, collection anddelivery of documents or case exhibits, seizure, freezing and forfeiture of assets,handing over of criminals, joint operations and other cooperation agreed uponby both agencies

iii.

Other Areas of AssistanceTraining course and work attachment: There have been several training courses andwork attachments organized through the Working Group mechanism. Among thetraining course provided by the MACC: Intelligence Based Investigation; AssetRecovery & Forfeiture and Team Based Investigation through the Malaysian AntiCorruption Academy; work attachment at the Anti-Money-Laundering
Investigation Branch of the MACC was also offered to learn and gain experienceon the process and practical part of investigation.

iv.

Giving Oral Evidence in Magistrate Court
Through the joint operations conducted and assistance rendered in obtaining
witness statements, several cases have been tried in the Court of Brunei Darussalam.
MACC officers who were involved in the case have been called by the Court ofBrunei Darussalam to give evidence in Court.

v.

Mechanism of Implementation on Mutual Assistance- Meetings are held upon mutual agreement of both agencies, at least once a year
on a rotational basis prior to the Annual Bilateral Meeting, during which thepresentation of statistics on cooperation assistance in investigation, intelligence,training, arrest and joint operations between the two agencies is included in themeeting’s agenda. The “traffic light concept” has been adopted in the WG
meeting to ensure that all requests between the two agencies have been fulfilled.
It was mutually agreed that the colour green indicates the requests have been“completed”, yellow indicates the request is still “in progress” and red indicatesthat the request “has not been initiated”. Apart from holding the annual WG
meeting, there have been ad hoc meetings held when necessary to discuss any
issues related to joint operations in areas of investigation and intelligence as- 30 -- 32 -

well as meetings in relation to cooperation assistance between the two agencies
made according to the current needs.
vi.

Requests for Assistance
All requests shall be made via official letter. In any circumstances where action isrequired immediately, direct communication can be made between at least one
Working Group member with the Working Group member of the requested agency,
which will then be followed by an official letter. During the global Covid-19
pandemic, both agencies continue to render assistance online, and any queries canbe communicated by video conferencing.

vii.

Means of Communication between WG Members
The means of communication between WG members can be done through meetingin person, correspondence letters, telephone, facsimile, email and videoconferencing. The means of communication depends on the level of confidentialityof mutual assistance provided.

viii.

Secretariat
The Working Group Secretariat is composed of officers of the Anti-Corruption
Bureau and the MACC. For the Anti-Corruption Bureau, officers from theInvestigation Unit and Intelligence Unit are appointed to facilitate the requests,
whereas for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, officers are appointed
from the Foreign Mutual Investigation Assistance Section of the Investigation
Department. The secretariat is responsible for recording all requests and ensuringthat all requests have been fulfilled.

ix.

Sports and Recreational Activities
To further enhance the friendship and cooperation among the two agencies, sports
and recreational programmes were also included as part of the Working Group
meeting agenda.

B. Success Stories and Challenges•Ops RR (ACB, Brunei Darussalam 2018-2019)
Assistance was rendered by the MACC to locate the main witness and to obtain awritten statement of a Malaysian national, a main potential witness to the case. TheACB, through the Attorney General Chambers of Brunei, had applied for Mutual
Legal Assistance to secure the potential witness to attend trial via video conference.
Through this cooperation, it eased the investigation process of the case which later
contributed to the successful prosecution of the case.

•Ops Hilux (ACB, Brunei Darussalam 2015-2016)
Assistance was rendered by MACC Sarawak to locate and arrest a Malaysian
contractor who had fled from Brunei. Intelligence information from the MACC had
led to the arrest of the Malaysian subject, and a warrant of arrest (outside of Brunei’sjurisdiction) was executed in Sarawak. This led to the successful trial of both thegiver and receiver who had been sentenced to imprisonment under the Preventionof Corruption Act (Chapter 131) and the Penal Code (Chapter 22).

- 31 -- 33 -

•Ops “Batu” (ACB, Brunei Darussalam 2014)
A joint operation was conducted involving the smuggling of gravel and sand from
Sarawak, Malaysia, to Brunei by two Malaysian shipping companies. Initial
information stated there was corruption involved. However, when the joint
operation was conducted, it was revealed that they had shipped undeclared gravel
to Brunei. The successful joint operation has contributed to the successfulprosecution of the case. Initially the court ordered the forfeiture of the two vessels,
but subsequently the High Court of Appeal ordered the release of the two vessels
due to the appeal by the defendants that they have been already given hefty penaltyfines.

•Ops Jarum (ACB, Brunei Darussalam 2008-2009)
An operation was conducted in respect of a corruption syndicate which involved anoil smuggling syndicate from Brunei to Miri, Sarawak, via the Sungai Tujoh
Control Post. Undercover officers (UCO) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission officers and two Undercover Agents (UCA) were deployed among thesmugglers. The outcome of the operation led to the arrest of 40 customs officers
who had been involved in assisting the smuggling activity and receiving bribes fromthe smugglers. Although the operation resulted in successful prosecution of the caseagainst four customs officers and ceased the smuggling activity between the borders,the case had also encountered challenges mainly derived from obtaining witness
testimony. It was challenging to arrange for undercover officers and undercoveragents (the smugglers) to attend the trial, and a further obstacle was due to theircommitment to other trials for other customs officers who had been tried separately,
and also due to the frequent adjournment of trials by defendants. For the fifteen (15)defendants who were charged initially, the Deputy Public Prosecutor had decided
to enter Nolle (nolle prosequi) and discharged prosecutions against customs officers
who were subject to disciplinary action.

C. The Way Forward for the Working Group Mechanism
Despite the close cooperation between the two agencies, there is still limitation on
obtaining financial records and data through this WG mechanism. However, by combining
efforts through the assistance of the Financial Action Task Force mechanism, this will bean upcoming venture of cooperation that both agencies will look into, such as discovery,
seizure, freezing and forfeiture of assets.
III. CONCLUSION
Anti-corruption agencies now have to fully mobilize all efforts nationally and throughinternational networks to ensure the successful battle against corruption. The WG
mechanism shows the importance of having continuous bonding and cooperation amonganti-corruption agencies. Such strong bonds and close cooperation between anti-corruption
agencies have been contributing factors for the success in resolving cross-border corruption.
Some of the success stories which resulted from close cooperation between the AntiCorruption Bureau, Brunei Darussalam and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
have been published in the special edition book titled Special Report, 10 Years Working
Group ACB-Brunei Darussalam – MACC, In Operational, Investigation and Intelligence
Aspects. This book would be beneficial reference or “showcase” of the commitments,- 32 -- 34 -

vision and mission by both agencies through their successful WG mechanism to deter thecorrosive effects of corruption.

- 33 -- 35 -

REFERENCES
1.

Special Report, 10 Years Working Group ACB-Brunei Darussalam – MACC, In
Operational, Investigation and Intelligence Aspects (2015).

2. PP vs Ramzidah binti Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Kol (R) Hj Abd Rahman (1stDefendant) and Haji Nabil Daraina bin Pehin Udana Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia
Ustaz Hj Awang Badaruddin (2nd Defendant) For Ops RR
3. PP vs Liew Say Koo, PP vs Khairur Rijal bin Haji Abu Salim for Ops Hilux
4. PP vs Ngu Shipping and Trading Sdn Bhd, PP vs Abasa Shipping and Trading Sdn
Bhd for Ops ‘Batu’
5. PP vs Sanip bin Ura; PP v Ahmad bin Haji Sahari; PP v Muhammad Rafi bin Haji
Rashid for Ops Jarum- 34 -- 36 -