Back
2022 MarsdenLR 594
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PP – Appellant
Versus
AHMAD ZAHID HAMIDI – Respondent
[Criminal Trial No: BA-[45-53]-12-2019]
The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused received illicit funds; failure to present credible evidence leads to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Section 16(a)(B) – Penal Code – Section 165 – Corruptly receiving gratification – Accused charged with multiple counts of corruptly receiving significant sums from UKSB while serving as a public official – Prosecution relied on witness testimonies and ledger entries to establish prima facie case. (Paras 1-5, 14-15, 65-69)
(B) Burden of proof – Considering whether the prosecution established a prima facie case based on credible evidence – Importance of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings. (Paras 41-46)
Facts of the case: The accused, a high-ranking official, allegedly accepted substantial cash contributions from a contractor in exchange for favorable treatment regarding government contracts between 2014 and 2018. The prosecution presented testimonies and documentation to support their allegations but faced issues of credibility concerning the primary witnesses. (Paras 1-10, 65-168)
Findings of Court: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to the unreliability of the testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused directly to the alleged gratification. (Paras 65-169)
Issues: The main issues included whether the accused had indeed received the amounts specified in the charges and whether the evidence presented established the requisite elements of the offences under the MACC Act and Penal Code. (Paras 56-63)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to substantiate the charges against the accused; credibility issues of key witnesses and lack of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion of insufficient evidence. (Paras 68-169)
Result: The accused was acquitted and discharged from all charges without the need to present a defense as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. (Para 172)
JUDGMENT
Background
[1] Dato' Seri Zahid Hamidi (accused), the former Deputy Prime Minister cum Minister of Home Affairs is facing 33 charges under s 16(a)(B) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act) for 33 offences of corruptly receiving gratification from a company called Ultra Kinara Sdn Bhd (UKSB) with 33 alternative charges under s 165 of the Penal Code ( PC ), for 33 offences in the accused's capacity as a public servant for receiving a valuable thing without consideration. In addition, the accused has also been charged with 7 alternative charges under s 165 . All offences are said to have been committed in two locations, ie either the private residence of the accused at Number 389, Jalan Bayu Nyaman, Country Heights Kajang, Selangor (Country Heights residence) or the official residence of the Deputy Prime Minister at Seri Satria in Presint 16, Putrajaya (Seri Satria residence).
[2] For the 33 main charges under s 16(a)(B) MACC Act, the accused was also facing 33 alternative charges under s 165 Penal Code .
[3] Based on the 33 main and alternative charges, the accused is said to have corruptly received a sum of SGD200,000.00 beginning the month of October 2014 until February 2015, SGD300,000.00 beginning the month of March 2015 until May 2017 and finally beginning June 2017 until March 2018 for a sum of SGD520,000.00 received by the accused. Based on the 7 alternative charges, the accused is said to have received a total amount of SGD4,240,000.00 on 28 March 2017, 4 May 2017, September 2017, November 2017, 10 January 2018, 12 February 2018 and 2 March 2018 all at the Seri Satria residence.
[4] Based on the charges framed, all of the monies stated in the 33 main charges under s 16(a)(B) MACC Act relate to the contract which was awarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) to UKSB.
[5] The said gratification is said to have been delivered and received by the accused every month beginning October 2014 until March 2018. In the event where there was no payment made for a particular month, the said payment would then be doubled in the following month.
[6] For the 7 alternative charges under s 165 Penal Code , the accused is alleged to have received monies without consideration from UKSB which had official dealings with the MOHA.
[7] Out of the 26 of the 33 main and alternative charges, the offences were alleged to have been committed in the Country Heights residence. They are as follows:
[8] For the 7 other charges under s 165 Penal Code , the offences were alleged to have been committed at the Seri Satria residence on the dates specified as follows.
[9] For the 7 charges under s 165 Penal Code in respect of one-off payments received by the accused, the offences were alleged to have been committed on the dates and places as follows.
[10] On 9 June 2022 and 16 June 2022, when PW15 was giving evidence, the prosecution tendered two additional amended charges, the offences for these 2 additional amended charges were alleged to have been committed on the dates and places as follows.
[11] For ease of reference, one of the 33 main charges under s 16(a)(B) MACC Act and one of the alternative charges under s 165 Penal Code are reproduced as follows.
Main Charge:
"Bahawa kamu, pada bulan April 2015, di No 389, Jalan Bayu Nyaman, Country Heights, di dalam Daerah Kajang, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah secara rasuah menerima suatu suapan daripada syarikat Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd iaitu wang tunai berjumlah SGD600,000.00 sebagai upah untuk diri kamu sebagai seorang pegawai badan awam, iaitu Menteri Dalam Negeri di Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia, oleh sebab kamu melakukan apa-apa perkara yang sebenarnya dengan badan awam itu terlibat, iaitu mengekalkan kontrak Perjanjian Untuk Membekalkan Sistem Bersepadu Visa Luar Negara (VLN) kepada Syarikat Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd, oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia
