Firdaus Rizal Bin Abdul Manan

Firdaus Rizal Bin Abdul Manan

The court concluded that the prolonged duration of offending (2012–2019), the large aggregate losses involving multiple victims (millions of ringgit), absence of evidence of restitution, and the separate nature of each offence justified significant punishment and separate (consecutive) sentences; guilty pleas and medical/personal mitigation reduced but did not eliminate the need for deterrent sentences, leading to two years' imprisonment, two strokes, and RM10,000 fine per count, with imprisonment to run separately for each count.

Citation
AC-62K-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Firdaus Rizal bin Abdul Manan
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Case Number
AC-62K-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code) / Sentencing Pronounced; Defendant Has Filed Notice of Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Defendant convicted following guilty pleas and sentenced on nine counts.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Section 409 Penal Code, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea Mitigation, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Trust Law Sentencing Breach of Trust Section 409 Penal Code Sentencing Principles Guilty Plea Mitigation Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Firdaus Rizal bin Abdul Manan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Breach of Trust (section 409 Penal Code) / Sentencing Pronounced; Defendant Has Filed Notice of Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for multiple counts of criminal breach of trust under s.409
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or separately
  3. 3 Extent of mitigation for guilty plea, personal circumstances and medical conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the prolonged duration of offending (2012–2019), the large aggregate losses involving multiple victims (millions of ringgit), absence of evidence of restitution, and the separate nature of each offence justified significant punishment and separate (consecutive) sentences; guilty pleas and medical/personal mitigation reduced but did not eliminate the need for deterrent sentences, leading to two years' imprisonment, two strokes, and RM10,000 fine per count, with imprisonment to run separately for each count.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted following guilty pleas and sentenced on nine counts.

Orders

  • For each of the nine charges: two years imprisonment, two strokes, and a fine of RM10,000 (in default six months imprisonment). Imprisonment to run separately (consecutive) for each charge.