FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN

Court found that offences occurred over an extended period (2012–2019), involved multiple victims and substantial losses, guilty pleas only partially mitigated culpability, and because the offences were separate transactions against different parties concurrent sentences were not justified; court therefore imposed for each of nine counts 2 years imprisonment, 2 strokes of the cane and RM10,000 fine (six months default), with imprisonment to run separately (consecutively) for each count, reflecting deterrence and denunciation while moderating corporal punishment due to health concerns.

Citation
AC-62K-6-08/2024 (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-6-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Offence Under Penal Code S.409 (criminal Breach of Trust) / Sentencing and Appeal Against Sentence (post Guilty Pleas)
Outcome
Defendant convicted following guilty pleas and sentenced
Legal Topics
Criminal Breach of Trust, Sentencing, Guilty Plea Mitigation, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences, Restitution and Victim Loss
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Criminal Breach of Trust Sentencing Guilty Plea Mitigation Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences Restitution and Victim Loss

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Firdaus Rizal bin Abdul Manan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Offence Under Penal Code S.409 (criminal Breach of Trust) / Sentencing and Appeal Against Sentence (post Guilty Pleas)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for multiple s.409 offences spanning 2012–2019
  2. 2 Whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively
  3. 3 Weight to give to guilty pleas and defendant's health and family circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Court found that offences occurred over an extended period (2012–2019), involved multiple victims and substantial losses, guilty pleas only partially mitigated culpability, and because the offences were separate transactions against different parties concurrent sentences were not justified; court therefore imposed for each of nine counts 2 years imprisonment, 2 strokes of the cane and RM10,000 fine (six months default), with imprisonment to run separately (consecutively) for each count, reflecting deterrence and denunciation while moderating corporal punishment due to health concerns.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted following guilty pleas and sentenced

Orders

  • For each of the nine counts under section 409 Penal Code: 2 years imprisonment, 2 strokes of the cane, and a fine of RM10,000 with six months default imprisonment if the fine is not paid; imprisonment to run separately (consecutively) for each count