MOHD ISA BIN ABDUL SAMAD [ ]

MOHD ISA BIN ABDUL SAMAD [ ]

Convictions on nine counts under s16(a)(A) MACCA were unsafe and set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the essential allegation as charged (that gratification was a reward for appellant assisting to obtain FICSB approval). The prosecution materially shifted its narrative at trial toward an inducement to prevent interference, creating variance with the particulars of the charges and prejudicing the defence; the trial judge misapplied s50(1) MACCA and drew inferences unsupported by credible evidence (notably inconsistent testimony of SP21 and absence of evidence that appellant directed or influenced the board), therefore no safe prima facie case remained and appeal must succeed.

Citation
W-05(SH)-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)
Court
SH
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 March 2024
Case Number
W-05(SH)-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Bribery (s16 Macca), Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code), Statutory Presumption (s50 Macca), Particulars of Charge (s153 Cpc), Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Corporate Governance Procedure Bribery (s16 Macca) Criminal Breach of Trust (s409 Penal Code) Statutory Presumption (s50 Macca) +2 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya (Public Prosecutor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prima facie case was established for s16(a)(A) MACCA charges
  2. 2 Proper characterisation of gratification: reward vs inducement
  3. 3 Application and rebuttal of statutory presumption under s50(1) MACCA

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions on nine counts under s16(a)(A) MACCA were unsafe and set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the essential allegation as charged (that gratification was a reward for appellant assisting to obtain FICSB approval). The prosecution materially shifted its narrative at trial toward an inducement to prevent interference, creating variance with the particulars of the charges and prejudicing the defence; the trial judge misapplied s50(1) MACCA and drew inferences unsupported by credible evidence (notably inconsistent testimony of SP21 and absence of evidence that appellant directed or influenced the board), therefore no safe prima facie case remained and appeal must succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside
  • Convictions on nine counts under s16(a)(A) MACCA quashed