Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Solicitation

  • 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.

  • 8 Aug 2025

    Zulhairin Bin Yahya

    Citation
    AA-42R(A)-7-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    AA-42R(A)-7-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    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.

  • 8 Aug 2025

    Zaidi Bin Dali

    Citation
    AA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    A
    Case number
    AA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Recordings were inadmissible for lack of mandatory s43(4) certificate; absence of recovery memo broke the evidential chain for the alleged RM7,000 receipt; investigatory conflicts and unexplained delay/omissions by the complainant further undermined credibility; s50(1) presumption was misapplied because foundational proof of receipt was not established. Accordingly convictions under ss17(a) and 16(a)(B) were unsafe and were set aside leading to acquittal and discharge of appellants.

  • 6 Apr 2022

    LIN FAN

    Citation
    CA-83-126-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CA-83-126-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    The court accepted the unqualified guilty plea as valid under s.173(b) after ensuring comprehension via qualified interpreter; balancing public interest and mitigation (first offender, remand period, dependants), but giving greater weight to deterrence and the accused's immigration overstay, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three months from date of arrest (23 March 2022) and ordered referral to the Director-General of Immigration upon completion.