MOHAMED SYAFFIQ BIN MOHAMED SIDEK

MOHAMED SYAFFIQ BIN MOHAMED SIDEK

The High Court held that although the prosecution proved receipt of RM700 by the accused, the essential element under s.17(a) ASPRM — that the money was received as an inducement to not perform an official act — was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; consequently the s.17(a) conviction was unsafe and set aside. However, the evidence established the accused, a public servant, received valuable property (RM700) knowing a proceeding involving him was possible, constituting an offence under s.165 Penal Code; the court substituted conviction under s.165 and sentenced the accused to one month imprisonment from date of judgment.

Citation
CA-42S(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Mohamed Syaffiq bin Mohamed Sidek; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 December 2025
Case Number
CA-42S(A)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction under section 17(a) ASPRM set aside and substituted with conviction under section 165 Penal Code; sentence of one month imprisonment imposed from date of judgment.
Legal Topics
Corruption (s.17 ASPRM 2009), Receipt of Gratification (s.165 Penal Code), Appellate Procedure, Absence of Reasons of Judgment, Sentence
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Criminal Procedure Evidence Corruption (s.17 ASPRM 2009) Receipt of Gratification (s.165 Penal Code) Appellate Procedure Absence of Reasons of Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Syaffiq bin Mohamed Sidek

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appeal should be heard as an ordinary appeal or as a criminal review given absence of trial judge's reasons
  2. 2 Whether prosecution proved all elements of section 17(a) ASPRM beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether, on the evidence, conviction can be substituted under section 165 Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that although the prosecution proved receipt of RM700 by the accused, the essential element under s.17(a) ASPRM — that the money was received as an inducement to not perform an official act — was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; consequently the s.17(a) conviction was unsafe and set aside. However, the evidence established the accused, a public servant, received valuable property (RM700) knowing a proceeding involving him was possible, constituting an offence under s.165 Penal Code; the court substituted conviction under s.165 and sentenced the accused to one month imprisonment from date of judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conviction under section 17(a) ASPRM set aside and substituted with conviction under section 165 Penal Code; sentence of one month imprisonment imposed from date of judgment.

Orders

  • Set aside conviction and sentence under section 17(a) Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia Act 2009
  • Convict accused under section 165 Penal Code