ABD. GHANI BIN ISMAIL

ABD. GHANI BIN ISMAIL

The court found the accused was an agent of MPAJ and that the subcontract constituted gratification; evidence (notably PW14 and PW11) proved the accused planned and arranged the subcontract and benefited (BMW payments), invoking the s.42(1) presumption which the defence failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; therefore the conviction under s.11(a) and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court were upheld.

Citation
42(S)-6-01/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
APPELLANT: ABD. GHANI BIN ISMAIL; RESPONDENT: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court
S
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Case Number
42(S)-6-01/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Rehearing of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Remitted by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Section 11(a) Anti Corruption Act 1997, Presumption Under Section 42(1) ACA 1997, Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities, Appellate Review of Findings of Fact, Sentence Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Anti Corruption Criminal Law Public Procurement Section 11(a) Anti Corruption Act 1997 Presumption Under Section 42(1) ACA 1997 Rebuttal on Balance of Probabilities Appellate Review of Findings of Fact Sentence Review

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABD. GHANI BIN ISMAIL

APPELLANT

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

RESPONDENT

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Rehearing of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Remitted by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused accepted or obtained gratification as an inducement or reward under s.11(a) ACA 1997
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s.42(1) ACA 1997 applies and if so whether the defence rebutted it on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should disturb trial judge's findings of fact and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the accused was an agent of MPAJ and that the subcontract constituted gratification; evidence (notably PW14 and PW11) proved the accused planned and arranged the subcontract and benefited (BMW payments), invoking the s.42(1) presumption which the defence failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; therefore the conviction under s.11(a) and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under section 11(a) Anti-Corruption Act 1997 affirmed