YUSMI BIN ARSHAD [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

YUSMI BIN ARSHAD [Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM)]

The prosecution adduced cogent and overwhelming evidence (witnesses, documentary exhibits, recorded telephone call and controlled money) proving the elements of section 21(b) Akta SPRM; the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; the trial judge’s factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences were rightly imposed and are upheld.

Citation
RA-42(R)(A)-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Yusmi bin Arshad; Respondent: Pendakwa Raya
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Case Number
RA-42(R)(A)-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Bribery, Prima Facie Case, Admissibility of Recorded Communications, Sentencing, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Evidence Procedure Bribery Prima Facie Case Admissibility of Recorded Communications Sentencing +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yusmi bin Arshad

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether prosecution proved prima facie case on elements of section 21(b) Akta SPRM
  2. 2 whether defence raised reasonable doubt at close of defence
  3. 3 whether prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt at trial conclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution adduced cogent and overwhelming evidence (witnesses, documentary exhibits, recorded telephone call and controlled money) proving the elements of section 21(b) Akta SPRM; the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; the trial judge’s factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences were rightly imposed and are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Convictions on both counts under section 21(b) Akta SPRM affirmed.