Zulhairin Bin Yahya

Zulhairin Bin Yahya

Recordings obtained covertly were inadmissible absent the mandatory certificate under s43(4) MACC Act 2009; the prosecution also failed to produce a recovery memo under s33 and thus did not prove the essential fact of receipt of RM7,000 beyond reasonable doubt; s50(1) presumption was misapplied; the investigating officer's operational role and delay/omissions by the complainant further undermined the prosecution case. Collectively these defects made the convictions unsafe and required setting aside and acquittal.

Citation
AA-42R(A)-7-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Zaidi bin Dali; Appellant: Zulhairin bin Yahya; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 August 2025
Case Number
AA-42R(A)-7-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Rehearing on Appeal Under Section 316 CPC
Outcome
Convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted and discharged
Legal Topics
Corruption, Solicitation, Receipt of Gratification, Admissibility of Intercepted Communications and Recordings, Recovery/seizure Memos, Statutory Presumptions (s50), Independence of Investigating Officer, Delay in Complaint and Credibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Law Corruption Solicitation Receipt of Gratification Admissibility of Intercepted Communications and Recordings Recovery/seizure Memos +3 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaidi bin Dali

Appellant

Zulhairin bin Yahya

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Rehearing on Appeal Under Section 316 CPC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether covert audio/video recordings were admissible absent a certificate under s43(4) MACC Act 2009
  2. 2 Whether failure to prepare a recovery memo under s33 MACC Act 2009 fatally broke the chain of evidence for alleged receipt of RM7,000
  3. 3 Whether the statutory presumption under s50(1) MACC Act was properly invoked

Ratio Decidendi

Recordings obtained covertly were inadmissible absent the mandatory certificate under s43(4) MACC Act 2009; the prosecution also failed to produce a recovery memo under s33 and thus did not prove the essential fact of receipt of RM7,000 beyond reasonable doubt; s50(1) presumption was misapplied; the investigating officer's operational role and delay/omissions by the complainant further undermined the prosecution case. Collectively these defects made the convictions unsafe and required setting aside and acquittal.

Court Disposition

Convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted and discharged

Orders

  • Convictions under Section 17(a) and Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 set aside
  • All sentences and fines imposed by the Sessions Court vacated