Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rebuttal on balance of probabilities

Legal area

Court

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.
17 Dec 2025

AMINUDDIN BIN AMIR

Citation

NA-45A-7-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-45A-7-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Given the hut was unfenced and readily accessible, absence of fingerprints or forensic nexus, and the belated and unconvincing defence evidence (police report and witnesses), the accused succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions under s37(d) on the balance of probabilities and raised a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was acquitted and discharged.
8 Dec 2025

ABDUL BIN MOHD DESA

Citation

K-05(H)-205-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

K-05(H)-205-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Although the evidence established that the appellants possessed the drugs with common intention (possession and knowledge proven by direct observation of handling/packing), the trial court's conviction for trafficking under s.39B(1)(a) based on invoking s.37(da) atop a deemed possession was unsafe as it amounted to a 'presumption upon a presumption'; convictions under s.39B(1)(a) were quashed and substituted with convictions for possession under s.12(2) ADB punishable under s.39A(2) ADB read with s.34 Penal Code; appropriate sentence fixed at 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes from the dat…
13 Jun 2025

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] ONG BOON SIONG

Citation

JB-41LB-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-41LB-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had knowledge of or possession of the prohibited goods; the respondent rebutted the presumption in s.135(2) on the balance of probabilities by credible evidence that the goods were not in the vehicle while he was driving and that he left the vehicle unlocked on his employer's instructions; therefore the magistrate's acquittal was correct and should be upheld.
18 Apr 2025

NIK MOHD ZULKIFLI BIN NIK AHMAD

Citation

JA-82D-22-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-22-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution proved identity and unbroken chain of custody for the urine sample, the testing complied with s31A and the laboratory confirmed Amphetamine and Methamphetamine which are scheduled drugs; the statutory presumption under s37(k) therefore applied and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities or to raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted under s15(1)(a) DDA and sentenced.
6 Jan 2025

Mohd Noor Affendi Bin Zauklfli

Citation

T-06B-9-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

T-06B-9-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found no error in the trial and High Court conclusions: the respondent gave a credible innocent explanation that successfully rebutted the s50(1) presumption on the balance of probabilities and the prosecution failed to prove the AMLA charges beyond reasonable doubt given missing material documents and supporting defence evidence; there was no basis for appellate interference with factual findings or the evaluation of credibility.
6 Jan 2025

Mohd Noor Affendi bin Zauklfli

Citation

T-06B-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

T-06B-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the acquittal because the defence raised an innocent explanation that rebutted the statutory presumption under section 50(1) SPRM Act on the balance of probabilities and created reasonable doubt on the money‑laundering counts; absence of direct evidence that the accused detained or released vessels, non-production of material documents by investigators, and credible defence testimony were decisive; no sufficient reason existed to disturb the trial court's credibility findings on appeal.
23 May 2023

Norul Ezwan Bin Nasir

Citation

WA-42(R)(A)-2-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

R
Case number

WA-42(R)(A)-2-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prima facie case was established as determined by the appellate High Court order calling the accused to defend; the statutory presumption under s.50(1) ASPRM applied once prosecution proved the request/receipt of RM100 (marked money and recorded conversation); the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities given inconsistent, uncorroborated denials and conduct evidence (phone records, trapping and recovery of marked money); therefore conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court were upheld.
8 Dec 2022

AMIERUL MUKMIN BIN BAHARI

Citation

JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-34-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found prosecution proved chain of custody and Section 31A compliance; laboratory analysis (P9) confirmed scheduled drugs in the accused's urine; the statutory presumption under Section 37(k) was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities because the accused's denial and vape contamination claim were uncorroborated; therefore accused guilty under Section 15(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and convicted.
7 Aug 2022

Amir Shariffuddin Bin Abd Raub

Citation

JA-62R-12-06/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-62R-12-06/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that payments were corrupt gratification and that statutory presumption under s50 was rebutted by credible innocent explanations on the balance of probabilities; because predicate corruption was not established the money‑laundering charges lacked basis and the defence raised reasonable doubt; consequently all accused were properly acquitted and discharged.