FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Given the prolonged period of offending across separate transactions involving different victims and significant monetary losses with no restitution, the court found the offences serious and deserving of substantial punishment; mitigation (guilty plea, health, family circumstances) was insufficient to warrant concurrency or significant discount, therefore imposed two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine per count with imprisonment in default, sentences to run consecutively for each of the nine counts.

Citation
AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; Defendant: Firdaus Rizal bin Abdul Manan
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Case Number
AC-62K-5-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal (section 409 Breach of Trust) / Sentencing Appeal Filed
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced on nine counts; sentence imposed of two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine (six months' imprisonment in default) for each count; sentences to run consecutively.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Section 409, Consecutive Versus Concurrent Sentences, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Trusts Sentencing Breach of Trust Section 409 Consecutive Versus Concurrent Sentences Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

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

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Firdaus Rizal bin Abdul Manan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (section 409 Breach of Trust) / Sentencing Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for multiple offences of criminal breach of trust under Section 409
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Weight to be given to mitigating factors including guilty plea, health, family responsibilities and lack of restitution

Ratio Decidendi

Given the prolonged period of offending across separate transactions involving different victims and significant monetary losses with no restitution, the court found the offences serious and deserving of substantial punishment; mitigation (guilty plea, health, family circumstances) was insufficient to warrant concurrency or significant discount, therefore imposed two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine per count with imprisonment in default, sentences to run consecutively for each of the nine counts.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced on nine counts; sentence imposed of two years' imprisonment, two strokes and RM10,000 fine (six months' imprisonment in default) for each count; sentences to run consecutively.

Orders

  • Sentence of two years' imprisonment for each of nine counts.
  • Two strokes of the rotan for each of nine counts.