Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agent provocateur evidence

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

[ ] 1. ) Azman Bin Abdul Hamid 2. ) Shahril Bin Ahmad 3. ) Saifol Bin Ahmad

Citation

K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

K-05(LB)-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that evidence of a negotiated sale to an agent provocateur established trafficking under s.2 DDA and that, on the whole record, there was overwhelming evidence of Respondent 1's possession and knowledge; accordingly the trial judge's acquittal of Respondent 1 was set aside and replaced with conviction under s.39A(2) DDA with five years’ imprisonment from 30.09.2025. The absence of phone-call analyses did not cause miscarriage of justice. The prosecution failed to prove Respondent 3's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal of Respondent 3 was upheld.
3 Jul 2025

NUR AISHAH BINTI ABDULLAH

Citation

J-05(SH)-310-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-310-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had custody, control and knowledge of the drugs by admissible and credible agent provocateur testimony, supported by chemist analysis and unbroken chain of custody; statutory presumption of distribution under s37(da) ADB 1952 applied and appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities, therefore conviction and life sentence are upheld.
27 May 2025

1. ) Mohd Nazri Bin Wahab 2. ) Wan Hamdan Bin Wan Hashim [ ]

Citation

J-05(SH)-567-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-567-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that prosecution proved possession, control and knowledge of 54.52g of monoacetylmorphines by both appellants; the quantity exceeded the statutory minimum and hence s.37(da) presumption of trafficking applied; agent provocateur evidence under s.40A was admissible and credible; inconsistencies were immaterial and did not undermine core proof; appellants failed to rebut the presumption on balance of probabilities, therefore convictions and sentences were affirmed.
19 May 2025

1. ) ANAS HAFIZIN BIN AHMAD 2. ) MUHAMAD ASLAM BIN OSMAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN DAHAMID

Citation

K-06A-13-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

K-06A-13-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the High Court's order of 30 July 2024 that removed PW1's statutory protection was a definitive act that destroyed the witness's protection rights and thus constituted an appealable decision; the Court found the trial judge erred in revisiting and discharging the earlier in camera protection order without sufficient basis and reinstated the 20 February 2024 protection order under SOSMA s14 and the Witness Protection Act s20, allowing the prosecution's appeal and dismissing respondents' preliminary objections.
9 Dec 2024

[Bahagian Perkhidmatan Farmasi (KKM)] SAINUKA HABIB SDN BHD

Citation

BJ-87-109-6/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-87-109-6/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts: the alleged Type A licence evidence was inadmissible/unverified under Section 27(3) and therefore did not prove the accused was authorised to sell Group B poisons; prosecution did not prove the requisite knowledge/mens rea that the company authorised or knew of the unlawful sales; reliance on agent provocateur evidence without corroboration (CCTV, proper use of statutory search powers) was prejudicial. Consequently the magistrate properly discharged the accused at the close of prosecution.
6 Aug 2024

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] 1. ) MOHAMAD SHABUDIN BIN YUSOFF 2. ) AMIRUL ASRI BIN SHAARI 3. ) Sidinoazizi Bin Sidik (Dnaa) 4. ) Muhammad Nasrullah Bin Abdullah (Dnaa) 5. ) Syamim Syazni Bin Mohd Shasteri (Dnaa)

Citation

BA-45A-67-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-67-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had possession and knowledge of 27,846.8g of cannabis such that the statutory presumption under s.37(da) ADB operated; credible AP and police evidence established nexus and common intention under s.34; defence failed to rebut the presumption or raise reasonable doubt; accordingly both accused convicted under s.39B(1)(a) read with s.39B(2) ADB and s.34 Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes.
22 Dec 2021

PENDAKWARAYA 1. MURALIKRISHNA A/L NOKIAH 2. YUARAJA A/L RAJAGOPAL 3. ARUNASALAM A/L SUPUMARAN 4. SUNDER A/L SUPUMARAN 5. MOHANAMBAL A/P PUSHPANATHAN

Citation

WA-45A-17-05/2019 & WA-45A-18-05/2019 (didengar bersama) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

didengar bersama
Case number

WA-45A-17-05/2019 & WA-45A-18-05/2019 (didengar bersama) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court convicted 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused for First Case because AP1's negotiations with the 1st accused constituted a negotiated sale (trafficking) proven on maximum evaluation, chemist corroboration confirmed Methamphetamine 356.4g, and the acts of 2nd and 3rd supported a common intention under s.34; prosecution failed to prove Second Case independently (no negotiated sale or proof of possession for 1,242.0g) and failed to prove acts linking 4th and 5th to common intention, so they were acquitted in the First Case and all accused acquitted in Second Case.
5 Jan 2021

1. ) FAUZI BIN YAHYA 2. ) KHAIRUL AZMI BIN MD NOH

Citation

K-05(M)-193-04/2018 & K-05(M)-194-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

K-05(M)-193-04/2018 & K-05(M)-194-04/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity and quantities of the drugs, established a continuous chain of custody and a sale negotiated with the agent provocateur, and proved participation of both appellants with a common intention under s34 Penal Code; AP evidence was admissible and credible, defence was mere denial, therefore convictions and death sentences were upheld.
23 Oct 2020

PENDAKWARAYA ONG CHOON KEONG

Citation

83-735-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

83-735-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the agent provocateur's testimony (PW2), the gaming expert's identification of P6 (PW4) and corroborating circumstantial evidence (P7, P8) to trigger the statutory presumption under section 11(1)(c); the accused failed to rebut that presumption on balance of probabilities, and procedural delays or non‑examination of certain devices did not break the chain of evidence, therefore the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.