SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN

SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN

The court convicted the accused on all nine charges under Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 because the prosecution proved receipt of corrupt payments beyond reasonable doubt, the accused failed to provide an honest and credible explanation to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 50(1) MACC Act 2009 on the balance of probabilities, and the court was bound by the High Court's prior prima facie finding ordering the accused to be called to answer.

Citation
CA-61R-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused/defendant: SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Case Number
CA-61R-7-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (corruption Offences Under MACC Act 2009) / Judgment After Full Trial (at Close of Defence)
Outcome
Accused convicted on all 9 charges under Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 and sentenced.
Legal Topics
Section 16(a)(b) MACC Act 2009, Section 50(1) Presumption (macc Act 2009), Prima Facie Finding and Binding Effect of High Court Decision, Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof, Sentencing Principles for White Collar Crime
Source Language
Malay/English
Corruption Criminal Law Procedure (appeal) Sentencing Section 16(a)(b) MACC Act 2009 Section 50(1) Presumption (macc Act 2009) Prima Facie Finding and Binding Effect of High Court Decision Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (corruption Offences Under MACC Act 2009) / Judgment After Full Trial (at Close of Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under Section 50(1) of the MACC Act 2009 applied and whether the accused rebutted it on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of the accused's defence account (Ridzuan narrative)

Ratio Decidendi

The court convicted the accused on all nine charges under Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 because the prosecution proved receipt of corrupt payments beyond reasonable doubt, the accused failed to provide an honest and credible explanation to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 50(1) MACC Act 2009 on the balance of probabilities, and the court was bound by the High Court's prior prima facie finding ordering the accused to be called to answer.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all 9 charges under Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 and sentenced.

Orders

  • CA-61R-5-02/2020: Three counts (T1-T3) — imprisonment 24 months for each count from date of sentence; fine RM10,000 per count in default 2 months imprisonment per count.
  • CA-61R-6-02/2020: Three counts (T1-T3) — imprisonment 24 months for each count from date of sentence; fine RM10,000 per count in default 2 months imprisonment per count.