PENDAKWARAYA Pn. Norzilati Izhani binti Zainal @ Zainol (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hamidi bin Mohd Noh (Tetuan Syahrul & Hamid)

PENDAKWARAYA Pn. Norzilati Izhani binti Zainal @ Zainol (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hamidi bin Mohd Noh (Tetuan Syahrul & Hamid)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient that the appellant had acquired a legal or at least equitable interest in the charged properties: the transactions were executory with no full payment or registrable transfer instruments, thus no vested interest capable of being 'accepted' under s165; consequently the presumption under s50(3) MACC Act did not arise and the convictions could not stand.

Citation
42(R)(A)-1-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Syed Afendy Ali bin Syed Abid Ali; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Case Number
42(R)(A)-1-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of all charges under section 165 Penal Code; convictions set aside and fines to be refunded.
Legal Topics
Section 165 Penal Code, Definition of 'valuable Thing' and 'interest', Consideration and Executory Contracts, Presumption Under Section 50(3) MACC Act, Beneficial Ownership and Transfer of Immovable Property
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑corruption Law Property Law Contract Law Section 165 Penal Code Definition of 'valuable Thing' and 'interest' Consideration and Executory Contracts Presumption Under Section 50(3) MACC Act +1 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syed Afendy Ali bin Syed Abid Ali

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a public servant within meaning of section 165 Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused obtained an 'interest in immovable property' amounting to a 'valuable thing' under section 165 read with MACC Act
  3. 3 Whether the appellant received the properties without consideration or for inadequate consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient that the appellant had acquired a legal or at least equitable interest in the charged properties: the transactions were executory with no full payment or registrable transfer instruments, thus no vested interest capable of being 'accepted' under s165; consequently the presumption under s50(3) MACC Act did not arise and the convictions could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of all charges under section 165 Penal Code; convictions set aside and fines to be refunded.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Set aside the convictions on all charges under section 165 of the Penal Code