PUTRAJAYA, Dec 11 — The Federal Court today began hearing the prosecution’s bid to reinstate four criminal charges against Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, months after the Court of Appeal acquitted him of all wrongdoing in a high-profile corruption and abetment case.
The panel of three judges were Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.
They heard three separate appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor, led by Datuk Wan Shahruddin Wan Ladin, challenging the appellate court’s July decision that cleared the former youth and sports minister of abetting criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriating RM120,000 in political funds, and two related money-laundering offences.
The prosecution argued this morning that the Court of Appeal had erred in law and in its appreciation of the evidence, insisting the trial judge was correct to call for Syed Saddiq’s defence and convict him.
Its petition of appeal spans issues of abetment, alleged “evil intention”, interpretation of Bersatu’s constitution, the ownership of funds used in the Muar MP’s 2018 election campaign, and the credibility of key witness SP13.
Justice Abu Bakar was curt and direct, repeatedly reminding Wan Ladin not to drag his oral submissions.
The court said they had already read the full written submissions, so there was no need to re-explain matters already known.
Defence: Abetment charge and prima facie
Wan Shahruddin argued the Court Of Appeal (COA) ignored clear testimony showing a direct connection between Syed Saddiq and the individuals who withdrew funds.
Witnesses used words like “instructed”, indicating Syed Saddiq gave direct orders.
Prosecution argued the COA should have examined whether the witnesses had any motive to frame Syed Saddiq — they didn’t.
“All were his close friends, and testified they were merely following instructions. Therefore, their testimony was credible and delivered ‘in good faith’,” he said.
The prosecution also argued that prima facie case was properly established
Wan Shahruddin insisted the High Court correctly applied the “maximum evaluation” standard when deciding there was a prima facie case.
Justice Abu Bakar questioned him closely: Was the High Court’s statement “I have made maximum evaluation” sufficient?
Could he cite authorities confirming that this minimal explanation is enough?
Wan Ladin conceded that he had no directly supporting case law, except an old case (which the judges said didn’t apply because the facts differed).
He admitted he couldn’t find case law showing that the High Court’s brief explanation fully satisfies the law.
Then they moved to Section 403 of the Penal Code.
Prosecutors raised two legal questions namely the correct construction of “dishonest misappropriation” under the section and proper meaning of “property of another” where money is held on trust for a defined campaign purpose under fiduciary obligation.
Syed Saddiq was charged with misappropriating RM120,000 from Armada’s Maybank account to his personal account.
The COA reversed these findings stating the money did belong to Syed Saddiq and it was from fundraisers for his political campaigning.
Prosecutors disputed this saying the funds became personal property merely because the beneficiary is the political candidate.
“If allowed to stand this would immunise the appropriation of trust money by any campaign leader and collapse the concept of fiduciary criminal liability under Section 403 of Penal Code,” said the prosecution.
They said that witnesses testified that they were never informed that the funds were to reimburse personal expenses nor that they were classified as campaign donations.
“The trial judge held that misappropriation was complete the moment the money was removed from fiduciary control and deposited into the respondent (Syed Saddiq) personal account.”
“In addition there was an element of dishonesty when the respondent didn’t disclose investment or reimbursement to his own finance controller, this concealment was incompatible with honest conduct,” they argued.
On the anti-money laundering charge (AMLA)
Prosecution argued that by collapsing the laundering offences into the fate of the predicate offence, the COA effectively nullified the express wording of Section 4(4) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).
They said Syed Saddiq exercised control over the campaign funds and subsequently converted those funds for personal use before laundering part of the money through an investment account.
Money collected from fundraisers were for electoral purposes but there was no lawful disbursement thereafter toward campaign expenses or any other authorised purpose.
“The COA erred in law when it concluded that the AMLA convictions necessarily failed merely because it found that the predicate offence under Section 403 of the Penal code was not proven. Section 4(4) of AMLATFPUAA clearly provides that a person may be convicted of a laundering offence irrespective of whether there is a conviction in respect of a serious offence or whether there is a conviction in respect of a serious offence or whether prosecution has even been initiated for such offence,” the prosecution told the court.
“By reading into section 4(1)(b) a non-existent requirement of conviction for the predicate offence, the COA effectively amended the statute through interpretation, which is impermissible.”
The hearing ended with the prosecution today and will continue tomorrow with the defence submissions led by lead counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik.
Syed Saddiq was charged with abetting former Armada Assistant Treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali to commit criminal breach of trust against Armada funds amounting to RM1 million at CIMB Bank Berhad, KL Sentral on March 6, 2020, under Section 406 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, caning and a fine.
He was also charged with misusing RM120,000 belonging to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise under Section 403 of the Penal Code, which provides imprisonment of between six months and five years, whipping and a fine, upon conviction.
The former youth and sports minister was also charged with two counts of money laundering involving transfers of RM50,000 each into his Amanah Saham Bumiputera account.
The charges were framed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which carries a maximum jail term of 15 years and a fine of up to five times the amount involved, upon conviction.
