Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Smuggling of migrants

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2026

[ ] SHAMSUDIN BIN ISMAIL

Citation

DA-45SOM-116-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45SOM-116-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted guilty plea as voluntary and informed, applied mitigating discount for plea and first offence (one-quarter to one-third), balanced against public interest and severity of smuggling 14 migrants, and sentenced defendant to 7 years' imprisonment commencing from date of arrest (2 April 2023) and ordered forfeiture of Proton Persona PHY 4771 to the Government.
21 Apr 2025

JUBANG ANAK USIN [ ]

Citation

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

Q-05(SH)-600-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held prosecution proved ingredients of s26A ATIPSOM by evidence including PW5 and corroboration from appellant's cautioned statement admissible under s18A SOSMA; PW5, though an accomplice, was credible and sufficiently corroborated; non-production of Hadi did not create a gap warranting adverse inference; alibi was an afterthought and not sufficient to raise reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed and conviction and six-year sentence affirmed; stay granted on stated bail terms.
25 Feb 2025

1. ) SIPRIANUS NAHAK LUTAN 2. ) KLAU NOFRIANUS ERICK

Citation

A-05(H)-367-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

A-05(H)-367-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the trial judge's sentence of 54 months was manifestly inadequate in light of the respondents' leading roles in organising and supervising the large‑scale smuggling of 35 migrants, the need for deterrence and public interest, and relevant precedents; the Court allowed the prosecution's appeal and increased the custodial sentence to nine years imprisonment from the date of arrest (8 July 2023).
24 Feb 2025

HO BENG HOCK [ ]

Citation

Q-05(SH)-61-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

Q-05(SH)-61-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the High Court's factual findings that the six Indonesians were unlawfully in Malaysia and were attempting illegal exit via an illicit road at night; the appellant was driving them toward the border and circumstances permitted inference of knowledge or reason to believe they were being smuggled; the wording variation in the charge ('involved' v 'engaged') did not mislead the accused and was curable; therefore prosecution proved the essential elements of s26J ATIPSOM beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence were safe.
15 Jul 2024

1. ) TAN KE HUAT 2. ) ANANTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 3. ) SURESH A/L P.ARJUNAN 4. ) EKO RAHMADANI 5. ) ERFANNI 6. ) MOHD JOHAN BIN MUSA 7. ) TUAH 8. ) SIPRIANUS NAHAK LUTAN 9. ) KLAU NOFRIANUS ERICK 10. ) SIVALINGAM A/L SUPPRAMANI

Citation

AA-45SOM-5-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45SOM-5-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Balancing the gravity of organising and facilitating the smuggling of 35 migrants, the individual roles of OKT8 and OKT9 as principal organisers, their guilty pleas and mitigation, the court found the sentence of 54 months imprisonment from date of arrest appropriate and proportionate and therefore confirmed that sentence.
6 Feb 2024

1. ) DAVIS ANAK MERING 2. ) BUNSU ANAK GUTAK [ ]

Citation

Q-05(SH)-425-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

Q-05(SH)-425-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed conviction because the totality of admissible evidence (vehicle borrowing/use, migrants' depositions, arrest proximity to border, pre-arranged meeting at the estate) permitted the inference that appellants conveyed smuggled migrants and had knowledge or reason to believe the migrants' entry/exit was unlawful; common intention was inferable from conduct and the trial judge properly evaluated and rejected the defence, so there were no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the factual findings.
24 Jun 2022

[ ] Citara

Citation

BA-45SOM-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45SOM-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the admissibility of photographic exhibits via witness oral evidence under s.90A, admitted the accused's statement under SOSMA s.18A and the migrant's deposition under s.61A ATIPSOM; on maximum evaluation of prosecution evidence (CCTV, passports, boarding passes, accused's admission and migrant's deposition) all essential ingredients of Section 26A ATIPSOM were established—arrangement/assistance in unlawful exit, accused's knowledge or reasons to believe unlawfulness, migrant's non-citizen status and provision of assistance—therefore prosecution proved a prima facie case an…
7 Nov 2021

PENDAKWARAYA MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ BIN SALLEH @ HASAN

Citation

DA-45SOM-27-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-45SOM-27-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Accused's guilty plea and lack of prior record were mitigating factors but outweighed by the gravity of actively smuggling 16 migrants; the offence is a serious security-related offence attracting significant custodial penalty within the statutory maximum, and the court properly exercised its discretion to impose 8 years' imprisonment and to forfeit exhibits used in the commission of the offence.
30 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA SIEW CHUN HOE

Citation

BL-45SOM-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-45SOM-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 12‑month imprisonment from the date of arrest is within the statutory maximum under s26J and is a proportionate sentence after balancing deterrence and rehabilitation, taking into account the respondent's first offender status, lengthy remand custody and that only one migrant was involved; therefore the prosecution's appeal is dismissed.
12 Sept 2019

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. AHMAD ANUAR 2. ABDUL JAILANI

Citation

M-05(H)-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

H
Case number

M-05(H)-5-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the trial judge applied correct sentencing principles by balancing public interest and mitigating factors, found no error or manifest inadequacy in the five‑year sentences, and therefore dismissed the prosecution's appeal and affirmed the sentences and forfeiture order.