Wong Xin Wei

Wong Xin Wei

On the evidence the accused knowingly placed RM3,000 as a monetary gratification with the clear purpose of cancelling three compound notices; PW10 and PW7 were credible; statutory presumption under s50(1) applied once gratification was proved and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; therefore the elements of s17(b) MACC Act 2009 were proven beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed, with sentence imposed under s24(1).

Citation
JA-62R-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Wong Xin Wei; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 August 2024
Case Number
JA-62R-6-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sessions Court Trial and Judgment; Conviction and Sentence (appeal to High Court Pending)
Outcome
Convicted of offence under s17(b) MACC Act 2009; sentenced
Legal Topics
Bribery, MACC Act 2009 S17(b) Offence, Presumption Under S50(1) MACC Act 2009, Admissibility of Certificate S55 MACC Act 2009, Sentencing Under S24(1)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Administrative Law/enforcement Bribery MACC Act 2009 S17(b) Offence Presumption Under S50(1) MACC Act 2009 Admissibility of Certificate S55 MACC Act 2009 Sentencing Under S24(1)

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

Parties

Wong Xin Wei

Appellant/accused

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sessions Court Trial and Judgment; Conviction and Sentence (appeal to High Court Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused corruptly gave gratification to an agent (PW10)
  2. 2 Whether the gratification was an inducement to do an act in relation to the principal's affairs
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption under s50(1) arises and whether it was rebutted on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the accused knowingly placed RM3,000 as a monetary gratification with the clear purpose of cancelling three compound notices; PW10 and PW7 were credible; statutory presumption under s50(1) applied once gratification was proved and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; therefore the elements of s17(b) MACC Act 2009 were proven beyond reasonable doubt and conviction followed, with sentence imposed under s24(1).

Court Disposition

Convicted of offence under s17(b) MACC Act 2009; sentenced

Orders

  • Convicted of giving gratification as inducement under MACC Act 2009 s17(b)
  • Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment (term to run from date sentence passed)