The court upheld the conviction for criminal breach of trust, establishing that failure to disburse entrusted funds by an agent constitutes dishonest misappropriation under the Penal Code.

Moses Susayan JC:

[1] The appellant, via the Notice of Appeal dated 15 February 2023, appeals to the High Court against the decision of the Teluk Intan Sessions Court. The Sessions Court had convicted and sentenced the appellant to three years' imprisonment, two strokes of the cane, and a fine of RM5,000.00 (or one year of imprisonment in default of payment) for each of the two charges under s 409 of the Penal Code . The imprisonment sentences for both charges were to run concurrently, starting from the date of judgment on February 14, 2023.

Background Facts

[2] The appellant faced two charges as follows:

a) "Bahawa kamu pada 16 July 2018, bertempat di RHB Bank Berhad, Bandar Baru di dalam Daerah Teluk Intan, di dalam Negeri Perak sebagai seorang Peguam bagi Tetuan Firdaus Rizal & Co dan dalam kapasiti tersebut telah diamanahkan dengan penguasaan ke atas harta tersebut, iaitu wang hasil penjualan rumah yang beralamat di No 186, Lorong 7, Taman Kaya, Taiping, Perak telah melakukan pecah amanah jenayah berkaitan harta tersebut berjumlah RM116,187.88. Dengan kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 409 Kanun Keseksaan"

b) "Bahawa kamu pada 16 July 2018, bertempat di RHB Bank Berhad, Bandar Baru di dalam Daerah Teluk Intan, di dalam Negeri Perak sebagai seorang peguam bagi Tetuan Firdaus Rizal & Co dan dalam kapasiti tersebut telah diamanahkan dengan penguasaan ke atas harta tersebut, iaitu wang lebihan hasil pembelian rumah yang beralamat di No 186, Lorong 7, Taman Kaya, Taiping, Perak telah melakukan pecah amanah jenayah berkaitan harta tersebut berjumlah RM18,000.00. Dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 409 Kanun Keseksaan"

[3] The property seller, Salma binti Saad (SP1), and the buyer, Muhammad Shukri bin Burhanuddin (SP3), entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement on 5 February 2018, for a price of RM150,000.00. SP3 paid a deposit of RM4,134 to the Real Estate agent name 'Hebat Realtors'. However, the agreement inflated the sale price by RM18,000.00, whereas the actual price was RM132,000.00. To finance the purchase, SP3 secured a loan of RM135,000.00 from Maybank. Cik Rul Aida binti Muda (SP6) who is the wife of the appellant from Firdaus Rizal & Co, oversees the conveyancing transaction. SP1 claimed that she did not receive the balance sale proceeds of RM116,187.88, while SP3 stated that the excess amount of RM18,000.00 was also not paid. Both parties lodged police reports against the law firm over the unpaid amounts.

[4]. The law firm, a partnership between the appellant and Ma'arof bin Abdul Karim, had distinct roles among its lawyers. The appellant managed criminal defence cases, while civil litigation was handled by Ma'arof, and non-litigation matters, including property conveyancing transactions, was overseen by SP6. Financial administration was apparently handled by Manogaran a/l Munusamy (a finance clerk in the firm). The charge against the appellant in the Sessions Court resulted in the conviction of the appellant of both charges.

Law

[5] At the appellate stage, the burden on the accused is not so much to demonstrate that the learned Magistrate erred in law or fact at trial, but rather to show that the conviction is unsafe and ought not to be sustained.

[6] In Mohd Johi Said & Anor v. PP 2004 MarsdenLR 1495 ; 2004 MarsdenLR 2551 ; 2005 MarsdenLR 2231 ; , the Court of Appeal, Justice Gopal Sri Ram (as he then was), succinctly sets out the applicable standard in criminal appeals:

"Unlike civil appeals, where the appellant carries the burden of showing that the judge at first instance went wrong, in a criminal case the duty of the Court is to consider whether the conviction is right. The correct approach is therefore not whether the decision is wrong but whether the conviction is safe."

[7] Section 409 of the Penal Code provides as follows:

"Criminal breach of trust by public servant or agent

s 409. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any