Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bribery

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2026

Abd Razak Bin Mohd Darom

Citation

JA-61R-18-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-18-12/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the evidence and documents the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each accused received gratification (RM4,500 and RM1,500) derived from false procurement claims in contravention of s18 MACC Act, and neither reported the receipt as mandated by s25(1); credible and corroborated witness testimony and documentary trail overcame defendants' denials and defective alibi notices, warranting conviction and 12‑month custodial sentences for each accused.
5 Feb 2026

OTHMAN BIN DARUS

Citation

PB-42R(A)-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

PB-42R(A)-1-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial court rightly found the appellant a public officer who received RM10,800 by bank transfers as inducements to refrain from enforcement; SP11's testimony was credible and corroborated by independent bank records; section 50 presumption applied and the appellant failed to rebut it; investigative lapses did not render the prosecution case unsafe; conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.
9 Jan 2026

MUHAMMAD AZIM BIN MUHAMAD ADNAN

Citation

JA-42R(A)-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial judge’s credibility findings for PW4 and the evidential record established that First, Second and Fourth appellants actively solicited, obtained and facilitated corrupt payments; statutory presumption under s.50(1) MACC Act 2009 arose and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities by affirmative evidence; Second appellant’s acts satisfied attempt when interrupted by MACC trap; Third appellant’s conviction could not be sustained because prosecution produced no evidence of any act or facilitation by him and principal witnesses and investigator conceded absence of evidence of his per…
9 Jan 2026

1. ) MOHAMAD ZULHISHAM BIN ZULKAFLI 2. ) MOHAMED SYUKUR BIN GULAM MOHAMED

Citation

JA-42R(A)-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

JA-42R(A)-4-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The convictions of the First, Second and Fourth Appellants were affirmed because the prosecution proved solicitation and receipt of gratification, established inducement and forbearance, applied s.50(1) MACC Act 2009 which was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities, and there was sufficient evidence of active participation and common intention; the Third Appellant was acquitted because the prosecution produced no evidence of any act, statement or receipt by him that would satisfy the participation element required for liability under s.34 Penal Code and the presumption could not properl…
19 Dec 2025

SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN

Citation

CA-61R-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-61R-5-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court convicted accused on all nine counts because prosecution established receipt of corrupt payments (bank deposits, ATM control, telephone/code links) beyond reasonable doubt augmented by the Section 50(1) presumption which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; witnesses were found credible and accused's explanations were afterthoughts and not believable, warranting conviction and concurrent custodial sentences with fines.
19 Dec 2025

SHARIN SAFAMI BIN ZAINUDIN

Citation

CA-61R-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-61R-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted prosecution evidence, found accused's account to be an afterthought and not credible, concluded accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 50(1) MACC Act 2009 on the balance of probabilities, and therefore prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt; convicted on nine counts under Section 16(a)(B) MACC Act 2009 and imposed concurrent sentences and fines accordingly.
3 Dec 2025

Mohd Nazuli Bin Mohd Nazari

Citation

KA-61R-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-61R-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held prosecution proved all elements of s.17(a) MACC Act 2009 beyond reasonable doubt based on accused's status as agent, corroborated receipt of marked RM2,500, recorded telephone conversations and surrounding circumstances evidencing corrupt intention to avoid prosecution of SP5; defence was bare denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; accused convicted and sentenced accordingly.
25 Nov 2025

MOHD IDHAM BIN MOKHTAR

Citation

JA-61R-9-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-9-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential legal ingredients of both offences because (a) key witness PW12 admitted fabricating incriminating statements and his credit was impeached thus his evidence carried no weight; (b) evidence did not prove the accused voluntarily accepted or corruptly obtained monies for himself nor that he knew donors had connection to his official functions; therefore no prima facie case existed and accused was acquitted and discharged.
16 Nov 2025

Ahmad Jefri Azizi Bin Mohamad Sukri

Citation

DA-42R(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

DA-42R(A)-2-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the prosecution failed to prove the essential particulars of the amended charge (expired visit pass) and failed to prove that the alleged receipt of RM1,000 was for an unlawful purpose; the alleged cash provenance was inherently incredible and created reasonable doubt; consequently the presumption under s.50(1) could not be applied and the conviction was unsafe.
22 Oct 2025

ZULKIFLY BIN ABD ZA'PAR

Citation

JA-61R-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-61R-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, an immigration officer, corruptly solicited and thereafter received recurrent monetary gratifications as inducements to forbear enforcement against employers of illegal foreign workers; statutory presumption under s50(1) applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities, therefore conviction under s16(a)(B) and sentencing under s24 followed.