Bertram+Dewi+&+Alis


 * CHAPTER 1**

Effective Action To Eradicate Drug Dealer‍
 * ‍Title :**

As we know Drug is a chemical or ingredient which is dangerous when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. Drug Dealer is person who use anyway and strategy to distribute, trade, pusher a drug in illegal way (out of law) to get profit such money, property etc.
 * Background Information**

In Malaysia, some narcotic crime cases can’t be charged because of technical issue, prima facie, weak evidence etc. So because of that matter narcotic crime can’t be clean in our country. As we see also drug abuse can threat our country interms of economy, politic and society. **Statement of Problem** **Propose/Objective**
 * 1) in 1970’s and early 1980’s – drugs kingpins were “getting away with it” and only “small fries” were arrested.
 * 2) convictions under Sect.39(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is low, about 6%
 * 3) preventive detention under Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 does not remove the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime.
 * 1) To investigate effectiveness in [|Dangerous Drugs (FOP) 1988]


 * Research Question**
 * 1) How serious the impact drug dealer in country?
 * 2) How far is Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 can do to minimize the drug dealer activities?


 * ‍Significance of study**
 * 1) ‍To define the best way to fighting the planning crime/syndicate.
 * 2) The criminal will not able to do the drug activities because no profit impact.
 * 3) To give a lesson how to save a country from drugs.


 * Scope**
 * 1) News and cases regarding drug dealer.
 * 2) Legislative prospective view.

1.1 Interview with authority organization. 1.2 Observation in news, magazine, etc
 * Methadology Of Data Collection**
 * 1) Primary Data

2. Seconday Data 2.2 Statiscal report


 * CHAPTER 2**

Note : Miss Siti i'm wonder if u can give some comment on my literature review. thanks regards.

Literature Writing Review

**Effective Action To Eradicate Drug Dealer ** Drug is a chemical or ingredient which is dangerous when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. Drug Dealer is person who use anyway and strategy to distribute, trade, pusher a drug in illegal way (out of law) to get profit such money, property etc and the profit is over then risk. This can be shown in Bukit Aman Narcotic Record, 224,869 addicts spend at least two tubes of heroin per day with cost around RM10.00 each tube. So expenditure for addict can reach RM1.6billion per year that’s make person to involve in this business. This statement is appropriate to classic criminologist namely Jeremy Benthan in criminology book author by Freda Adler (1991), page 62 that say’s : **“ People weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasure against those of present and future pain. He proposed a precise pseudo-mathematical formula for this process, which he called “felicitous calculus.” According to his reasoning, individual are “human calculator” who put all the factor into an equation in order to decide whether or not a particular crime is worth committing.” ** So generally these no real effect in law enforcement of Dangerous Drug to drug dealer in Malaysia. This hypothesis has been made base on exposure, experience, consideration the author along his services in Narcotic Department, PDRM. In Malaysia, some narcotic crime cases, capital punishment in section 39B Dangerous Drug Act 1952 has non-deterrent effect and still inconsistency in punished the offender because of technical issue, prima facie, weak evidence etc. This fact can be show in Statistic Cases In Section 39B Dangerous Drug Act 1952 and Statistic Action in Dangerous Drug Act (Special Preventive Measure) 1985 from year 1990 to 1996 : **Statistic Cases In Section 39B Dangerous Drug Act 1952 ** **Statistic Action in Dangerous Drug Act (Special Preventive Measure) 1985 ** (Sources : Record Divison, Narcotic Department, Bukit Aman) Above statistic shown that although the enforcement of law, the statistic still increase within six years. Narcotic crime can’t be clean in country which effected the economy, politic and society in country. Other than since  1970’s and early 1980’s also, Drug kingpins were “getting away with it” and only “small fries” were arrested with conviction under Sect.39(b) of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 is low, about 6%. In year 1985, Implementation of preventive detention under Dangerous Drug (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 does not remove the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime because after detention, drug traffickers continue to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. However, in year 1988 enforcement of Dangerous Drug Act (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 has been made which is involves “asset tracing”- trace the properties of the liable persons (accused, family members, and associates). Property is seized when it is determined to be a tool or the proceeds of drug trafficking. Property seized includes the movable property like cash, jewellery, stocks etc and vehicles and immovable property like land, shop, house etc. The enforcement of forfeiture of property in Roman Empire/ Biblical Times (before 2000 years) in action of penalty and recovery. In 10th century, England has enforce to rebellion or felony. Then United States in year of 1970 has use for narcotic crime. Dangerous Drug Act (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 was parallel with punishment criminology concept (Cavadino & Dignan, 1992) which is Reductivism and Deterrence. Reductivism is a forward looking theory and it seeks to justify punishment by its alleged future consequences and if punishment is inflicted, it is claimed, the incidence of crime will be less than it would be if no penalty were imposed. Deterrence is the simple idea that the incidence of crime is reduced because of people’s fear or apprehension of the punishment that they may received if they offend which can categorize by two which is individual and general deterrence.
 * || 1990 || 1991 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1992 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1993 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1994 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1995 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1996 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Total ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Section 39B || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">453 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">465 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">463 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">518 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">486 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">549 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">800 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">3734 ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Section 39A(2) || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">474 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">524 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">552 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">566 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">576 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">640 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">753 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">4085 ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Total || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">927 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">989 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1015 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1084 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1062 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1189 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1553 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">7819 ||
 * || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1990 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1991 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1992 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1993 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1994 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1995 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1996 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Total ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Arrest Section 3(1) || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">566 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">883 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">816 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">814 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">748 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">994 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">1114 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">5935 ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Release || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">92 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">108 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">77 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">140 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">100 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">114 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">127 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">758 ||
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Total || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">474 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">775 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">739 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">674 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">648 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">880 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">987 || <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">5177 ||

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">The effectiveness a law can be seen in some aspect and perspective. It’s also can give a real view about effectiveness and level of achievement. One of aspect can be seen in review of effectiveness Dangerous Drug Act 1988 is in term of enforcement, which is a success to implementation base on amount of action and seizure. From data of action and seizure which collected, enforcement action has been made by PDRM, especially Narcotic Department under Dangerous Drug Act to Drugs Dealer from 1990 to 1996 has found a positive achievement. Achievement in Dangerous Drug Act (FOP) 1988 investigation is from 101 cases in 1990 has increase to 298 cases in 1996 which show 195% of increasing. Total property has seized was increase from RM3,263,268.92 on 1990 to RM11,863,328.42 on 1996 which is 263.5% increasing. The achievement of action or investigation and seizure has been proved and can be a yardstick effectiveness for efforts to tackle a drugs dealer in country. Before this Act has been enforce, property from profit of drug dealer syndicates return to owner but with this Act, all drugs dealer property include the transaction to others will be sized. Besides of achievement of efforts in enforcement of this Act, it’s can be seen now the drugs dealer try to use variety of “Modus Operandi” which means to careful and to hide the property from authorities. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Dangerous Drug Act (FOP) 1988 also give a deterrent to drugs dealer. Enforcement action and publicity to media and publisher has be a deterrent to drugs dealer facing not only the capital punishment but their property also will be seized by authorities. Publicity also impact to awareness of person who intention to get the property from this syndicates. Deterrent is one of purpose in punishment which can be divide by two categories, which is individual deterrence is focus to offender to make it “don’t do it again” with give a heavy punishment and general deterrence is to show a public a punishment as a example who maybe want to getting involve. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">From evidence and fact has describe above, these no objection that’s enforcement of Dangerous Drug Act (FOP) 1988 give a significant of efforts to eradication drug dealer. In action of forfeiture give a punitive impact. Because of main motive of drugs dealer is to get profit, so action to forfeiture of property hope can stop their spirit to involve in this syndicates. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> Bertham and Dewi, is this your refined work after the presentation? ~Siti <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">we still collect the information miss.. sorry for that

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> **<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Title : ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Effective Action To Eradicate Drug Dealer‍ <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> Drug is a chemical or ingredient which is dangerous when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal body function. Drug Dealer is person who use anyway and strategy to distribute, trade, pusher a drug in illegal way (out of law) to get profit such money, property etc. In Malaysia, some narcotic crime cases can’t be charged because of technical issue like mixing more than one types of drugs in material evidence, changing of weight in material evidence by environment. Failure to existance “prima facie” (from latin words mean “on its first appearance”) in court also make a cases being excluded. So because of that matter narcotic crime can’t be clean in our country. As we see also drug abuse can threat our country interms of economy like increase cost to maintain a prevention program, treatment and recovery to drug addict, enforcement and instability of politic and also on society view will increase of crime, weaken the unity and conflict.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Background Information **
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Statement of Problem **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> From analysis in year **<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1970’s and early 1980’s most drugs kingpins were “getting away with it” from punishment and only “small fries” were arrested. The Drug Dealer use innocent person known as “**Keldai Dadah**” with offer good incomes to run the drug activities and syndicate. Other than that drug dealer activites become more advance with variety of Modus Operandi (latin word mode of operating which use to describe method of operating and function) to hide from enforcement agencies such police, custom, ADK and so on. Bukit Aman Narcotic Department source said a conviction under Section39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is low, about 6%. This impact show that capital punishment in this section has non-deterrent effect and inconsistency in punishment to drugs dealer. Because of that matter, on 1988 enforment of <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] has been made to disable drugs dealer activity.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Objective Of Study ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> To investigate how far effectiveness in <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] to drug dealer by asset tracing. This enactment being use since 1988 which is to seize the property to who suspect in drugs activities. The property seized will be analyze and investigate by enforcement agencies pertain where the property come from. If the property come from unknown source or source cannot be explained, it will not return back to the owner. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1.1 What is trend of drug dealer cases? From our data and analysis arresting under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 from year 2009 to Mac 2011 show that increasing of cases. By Asistant Supritendent Police Data Analysis Unit, Bukit Aman Narcotic Department. 1.2 Who is involve in drug dealer syndicate? From our data and analysis, the dealer is from all society level such teenager, student, unemployed person and artists as a “Keldai Dadah”. By Asistant Supritendent Police Data Analysis Unit, Bukit Aman Narcotic Department. 2. How far is Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 can do to minimize the drug dealer activities? <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 2.2 What is Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988? It is a law involves ‘asset tracing’ which is trace the properties of the liable person like accused, family, members and associates. Property is seized when it is determined to be tool or the proceed of drug trafficking include moveable and immoveable properties. By Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman. 2.3 What is objective of FOP? Objectives is to ensure drugs dealer cannot get profit from drug activities, also to disable capacity or finance resource of drug organization and to prevent them to have a weapon technology which can threaten the enforce agencies. By Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman. 2.4 What is your achievement inforcement of FOP? From our statistic from 1988 till April 2011, we seized RM526milion of property and forfeiture amount is RM93milion. We also seized big amount seizing of property in operation such Ops Narcissus 2004, Ops Hybrid 2007, Ops Justicia 2008, Ops Gazania 2009, Ops Billfish 2009. Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman. 2.5 What of inisative to enhance this FOP performance? We enhance the investigation and management by implementation of ISO on forfeiture of property division. Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman. 2.6 Do your have any comment in enforcement of FOP? “Crime does not pay”. Investigation in FOP is a effective weapon to tackle narcotic crime especially to drugs dealer because it over the weakness other substantive drugs law. Also we can see now one of effectiveness of FOP is the variety of trend modus operandi from drug dealer in news. This kind of modus operandi show they afraid to Police because we have FOP to seize their property. By Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The research of study will show what really are the <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] can do to tackle the drugs dealer activities and effectiveness of [|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] base on statistic and current issue.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Research Question **
 * 1) <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> How serious the impact drug dealer in country?
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">‍ **
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Significance of study **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Scope ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This study is will cover a information regarding trend and issue of FOP to drug dealer in newspaper, internet and book magazines in Malaysia and also the effectiveness of FOP law.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Methadology Of Data Collection ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1.1 Interview with authority organization. 1.1.1 Interview with Asistant Commissioner Police, Narcotic Department, Bukit Aman <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1.1.2 Interview with Asistant Supritendant Police Data Analysis Unit, Bukit Aman Narcotic Department. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> 1.2 Observation in news, magazine, etc
 * 1) <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Primary Data

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 2. Seconday Data <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"> 2.2 Statiscal report

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> **<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Literature Review **

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Bukit Aman Narcotic Record, 224,869 addicts spend at least two tubes of heroin per day with cost around RM10.00 each tube. So expenditure for addict can reach RM1.6billion per year that’s make person to involve in this business. This statement is appropriate to classic criminologist namely Jeremy Benthan in criminology book author by Freda Adler (1991), page 62 that say’s :

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“ People weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasure against those of present and future pain. He proposed a precise pseudo-mathematical formula for this process, which he called “felicitous calculus.” According to his reasoning, individual are “human calculator” who put all the factor into an equation in order to decide whether or not a particular crime is worth committing.”Benthan (1991) **

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">So generally these no real effect in law enforcement of Dangerous Drug to drug dealer in Malaysia. Because of that the FOP law need to enforce to disable this activities.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“ …..the aim of forfeiture laws is to rupture the structures of criminal enterprises…. This strategy is directed at the crucial function of organised crime : making money. …. Organised crime groups depend on cash and assets to function just as much as their legitimate counterparts do…” ****<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Prof. Guy Stessens (Cambridge University) **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“ ….the rationale for forfeiting proceeds of crime is not to punish a person but rather to give effect to the equitable doctrine that a person should not be allowed to benefit from his or her wrongdoing.” ****<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Ass. Prof. Simon NW Yong (Hong Kong University) **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“…. Even if the main criminals of an organisation are incarcerated, they will be replaced by others who would continue illegal activities, unless their financial assets are removed. Thus, forfeiture intends to dismantle the economic infrastructure of drug trafficking networks…forfeiture considers the property as guilty, rather than the owner….” Hakki Tuncer (North Texas University) ** Deputy Ministry of Home Affairs said when draft of FOP:


 * <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“….that orders for preventive detention or restriction under Special Preventive Measure Act or POPOC have not been a deterrent for drug trafficking activities as on completion of the detention or restriction period, the detainees or restrictees could enjoy the ‘fruits’ of their ‘labour’. The Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of profits generated by drug activities in the country were large. Quotation the approximate drug dependent population at that time as 82,000 and 85 percent or 65,000 would be dependent on No.3 Heroin, the quality of heroin normally found in local market, these dependent need approximately 7.8 Kilograms of heroin a day and the profit to be gained from distribution and sale were almost one million ringgit or RM935,000 per day or RM841.5 million per annum.” Kamariah (1995) **

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Background in enforcement of Dangerous Drug Act (FOP) 1988 is because of motive drug dealer is to get a profit in fast lane. This FOP law created to give impact on drugs dealer financial. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">
 * CHAPTER 1**

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Title : ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Effective Action To Eradicate Drug Dealer‍

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">1.1 Background Information ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Drug is a chemical or ingredient which is dangerous when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal body function. Drug Dealer is person who use any ways and strategies to distribute, trade and hire to sell drugs in illegal ways to get profit such as money, property etc. In Malaysia, some narcotic crime cases cannot be charged because of technical issues for example like mixing more than one types of drugs in material evidence and changing of weight in material evidence by environment. Failure to create “prima facie” (from latin words mean “on its first appearance”) in court can also make cases to be discarded. Therefore of that matter narcotic crime cannot be eradicated in our country. As we also see drug abuse can threat a country economically such as increase of maintenance and preventive cost, treatment and recovery of drug addicts, enforcement and instability of politics and conflict and crime in the neighborhood. This will consequently, weaken unity within a society.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1.2 Statement of Problem **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In the effort to eradicate narcotic crimes, it was found that ****<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">in year **<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> 1970’s and early 1980’s most drugs kingpins were getting away from punishments and only small fries were arrested. The drug dealer use innocent person, known as //Keldai Dadah// or pusher or runner with offer of good incomes to run the drug activities and syndicates. Other than that, drug dealer activites become more advanced with varieties of modus operandis (latin word mode of operating which use to describe method of operating and function) to hide from enforcement agencies such as the Royal Malaysian Police, Royal Malaysian Customs, National Drug Agency and many more. Bukit Aman Narcotic Department source said a conviction under Section39(B) of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 is low which is about 6% ( Analysis/Data Record Division, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman, 2011). This shows that capital punishment in this section has a non-deterrent effect and inconsistency in punishment to drugs dealer. Because of this in 1988 enforment of <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] which allow <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">authority for PDRMto seize the properties of personwho involve in drug trace seize investigate and forfeit assets.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">1.3 Objective Of Study ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The objective of this study is to investigate how far is the <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] effective to paralyze drug dealer. This enactment being use since 1988 which is to seize the property to who suspect in drugs activities. The property seized will be analyzed and investigated by enforcement agencies pertain where the property come from. If the property come from unknown or unexplained, it will not be returned back to the owners.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">1.4 Research Question **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The research question is as follow : **


 * 1) **<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">How far is the Dangerous Drug 1988 act effective to paralyze drug dealers. **

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">1.5 Significance of study ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The significance of the study will show what really are the <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988] can do to tackle drug dealers activities [|Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988]. Data from this research can help <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">National Drug Agency and police to future understand t <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">ackle drug dealer activities.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">1.6 Scope ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This study is focus on the trend and issues in newspaper, internet and magazines in Malaysia FOP on drug dealers.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">
 * CHAPTER 2**

**<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Literature Review ** <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Using Jeremy Benthan (a criminologist) idea of human calculation to equate the value of crime (Adler, 1991). Bukit Aman Narcotic Record stated that 224,869 addicts spend at least two tubes of heroin per day with a cost of around RM10.00 each tube. Hence, expenditure for an addict can reach RM1.6billion per year which makes it a lucrative business. This hypothesis has been made base on exposure, experience, consideration the author along his services in Narcotic Department, PDRM. The Malaysian Government enacted drug law to curb crimes. Firstly Statistic Cases In section 39B and 39A(2) of Dangerous Drug Act from 1990 to 1996 show increasing of 90% cases (source, Analysis/Data Record, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman). Second is statistic of Dangerous Drug Act (Special Preventive Measure) 1985 in year 1990 to 1996 show increasing of 100% arrested which only 72% release. (source, Analysis/Data Record, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman). This statistical showed clearly there no awareness among Drugs Dealer. From this analysis result also showed that capital punishment in section 39B Dangerous Drug Act 1952 has a non-deterrent effect and is still inconsistency in punished the offender because of technical issues, prima facie, weak evidence and many more. Other than since 1970’s and early 1980’s also, Drug kingpins were getting away from punishment and only small fries were arrested with conviction under Sect.39(b) of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 which is only 6% (Lim Hong Shuan, 2011). In year 1985, Implementation of preventive detention under Dangerous Drug (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 does not remove the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime because after detention, drug traffickers continue to enjoy their ill-gotten gains (Lim Hong Shuan, 2011).

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">In Deputy Ministry of Home Affairs view, Dangerous Drug Act (Special Preventive Measure) 1985 just to freeze the drug dealer on certain time and their still can enjoy the profit and continue the syndicates. The consumption of drug addict is around 7.8 kilograms per day can make the sales reach RM841.5 million per annum (Kamariah, 1995). Because of that, enforcement of Dangerous Drug Act (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 has been made which is involves “asset tracing”- trace the properties of the liable persons (accused, family members, and associates). Property is seized when it is determined to be a tool or the proceeds of drug trafficking. Property seized includes the movable property like cash, jewellery, stocks etc and vehicles and immovable property like land, shop, house and many more.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The enforcement of forfeiture of property was started since in Roman Empire/ Biblical Times (before 2000 years) to punish and realize the guilty. Its also can be seen in 1970 when United States use same enforcement to reduce narcotic crime. Dangerous Drug Act (Forfeiture Of Property) 1988 was parallel with punishment criminology concept (Cavadino & Dignan, 1992) which is Reductivism and Deterrence. Reductivism is a forward looking theory and it seeks to justify punishment by its alleged future consequences and if punishment is inflicted, it is claimed, the incidence of crime will be less than it would be if no penalty were imposed. Deterrence is the simple idea that the incidence of crime is reduced because of people’s fear or apprehension of the punishment that they may received if they offend which can categorize by two which is individual and general deterrence.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">The effectiveness a law can be seen in some aspect and perspective. It’s also can give a real view about effectiveness and level of achievement. One of aspect can be seen in review of effectiveness Dangerous Drug Act 1988 is in term of enforcement, which is a success to implementation base on amount of action and seizure. From data of action and seizure which collected, enforcement action has been made by PDRM, especially Narcotic Department under Dangerous Drug Act to Drugs Dealer from 1990 to 1996 has found a positive achievement. Achievement in Dangerous Drug Act (FOP) 1988 investigation is from 101 cases in 1990 has increase to 298 cases in 1996 which show 195% of increasing (source, Analysis/Data Record, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman). Total property has seized was increase from RM3,263,268.92 on 1990 to RM11,863,328.42 on 1996 which is 263.5% increasing (source, Analysis/Data Record, Narcotic Department Bukit Aman).The achievement of action or investigation and seizure also can be proved in statistic under Dangerous Drug Act 1952 and Dangerous Drug (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 show decreasing of 80% in year 2008 to Mac 2011. Before this FOP Act has been enforce, property from profit of drug dealer syndicates return to owner but with this Act, all drugs dealer property include the transaction to others will be sized. Besides of achievement of efforts in enforcement of FOP Act, it can be seen currently the drugs dealer try to use variety of “Modus Operandi” which means to careful and to hide the property from authorities (Berita Harian, 2010)

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: justify;">