Experts urge clear rules for seizing assets of drunk drivers [WATCH]

KUALA LUMPUR: Amendments to current laws to allow the seizure of assets of alcohol- or drug-impaired drivers who fail to compensate their victims must have clear procedures for identifying, valuing and recovering such assets.

Universiti Putra Malaysia Road Safety Research Centre head Associate Professor Dr Law Teik Hua such procedures must also protect third parties and allow offenders to challenge seizures they considered excessive.

He said judicial discretion would also be necessary to assess offenders' actual financial circumstances and distinguish genuine hardship from attempts to evade payment.

He said the government should establish a formal compensation mechanism within criminal proceedings, with courts determining the amount payable based on the severity of the crash, damage incurred and the circumstances of each case.

Law proposed requiring offenders to declare their assets, setting realistic payment schedules and deadlines, and introducing enforcement measures to ensure compliance.

Law was responding to Transport Minister Anthony Loke's statement in the Dewan Rakyat earlier that the government was formulating a mechanism to seize assets and impose additional jail terms on drunk or drug-impaired drivers who failed to pay compensation to crash victims or the families of those killed.

Loke said the measures were intended to ensure compensation orders under amendments to the Road Transport Act provided meaningful recourse, particularly when offenders claimed they could not afford to pay.

He said the Transport Ministry planned to table the amendments in Parliament early next year.

Law said both the seizure of assets and the additional jail terms must be applied together if the amendments were to work.

He said this was the only way to strengthen enforcement and deter offences, while at the same time ensuring that victims, or their families, were compensated.

He said asset recovery could provide financial restitution to road crash victims and the families of those killed, while additional imprisonment would punish offenders who failed to comply with court orders.

"Relying solely on longer jail terms might not ensure victims receive the compensation to which they are entitled.

"The policy effectiveness of proposed amendments hinges critically on whether asset recovery will supplement punitive sanctions."

Law said asset seizures could be effective against offenders with sufficient financial resources and identifiable assets, helping address claims that they could not afford to pay.

"However, determining whether an offender is genuinely unable to pay could prove challenging, particularly when assets are transferred to third parties, ownership is concealed or properties are jointly owned."

He said the government should also consider establishing a victim compensation fund to provide provisional payments to affected victims and bereaved families while authorities pursue the recovery of offenders' assets.

"Insurance companies should also coordinate their payments with the compensation process to avoid duplication and minimise delays."