MOHAMED AZLI BIN ADAM

MOHAMED AZLI BIN ADAM

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that (1) the undercover evidence and recordings proved the accused received RM300 without consideration; (2) the accused knew the payment was connected to his official duties; (3) SP16 acted under direction and did not impermissibly induce the offence so entrapment was not established; and (4) s.52 ASPRM was applicable and admissible, therefore the elements of s.165 were satisfied and the conviction and sentence were safe.

Citation
BA-42(R)(A)-1-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohamed Azli bin Adam; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Case Number
BA-42(R)(A)-1-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Section 165 Penal Code (accepting Gratification), Section 52 Malaysian Anti‑corruption Commission Act (agent Provocateur), Entrapment, Admissibility of Covert Recordings, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑corruption Law Evidence Section 165 Penal Code (accepting Gratification) Section 52 Malaysian Anti‑corruption Commission Act (agent Provocateur) Entrapment Admissibility of Covert Recordings Sentencing

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

Parties

Mohamed Azli bin Adam

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused accepted RM300 as a valuable thing connected with his official duties under s.165 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the handover of RM300 was proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether reliance on SP16 alone created doubt
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the undercover officer (SP16) amounted to impermissible entrapment or inducement

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that (1) the undercover evidence and recordings proved the accused received RM300 without consideration; (2) the accused knew the payment was connected to his official duties; (3) SP16 acted under direction and did not impermissibly induce the offence so entrapment was not established; and (4) s.52 ASPRM was applicable and admissible, therefore the elements of s.165 were satisfied and the conviction and sentence were safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Conviction under s.165 Penal Code and sentence of 2 months imprisonment from 20.5.2022 and fine of RM5,000.00 affirmed.