Back
2025 MarsdenLR 949
Suraya Othman, J
Public Prosecutor – Plaintiff
Versus
Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam – Defendant
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused for corrupt practices and cheating due to lack of evidence of influence and deception.
Headnote:(A) Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22 of 1970 - Section 2(1) - Penal Code - Section 417 - Allegations of corrupt practice and cheating involving a public officer - No prima facie case established against the accused as essential ingredients not proven. (Paras 216)
(B) The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted as a public officer for pecuniary advantage or that any deceit occurred during the board's decision-making process. (Paras 215, 214)
(C) The evidence presented did not satisfy the elements required for charges of corrupt practices or cheating as outlined in the respective statutes. (Paras 213, 212)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with corrupt practices for allegedly using his position as chairman of a public body to gain financial advantage through the sale of shares. The two charges centered around the approval of SLDB's shares to a third party without disclosing potential conflicts of interest or deceitful acts. (Paras 1-2, 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the accused used his position for personal gain or that any concealment occurred. They were unable to prove the elements of cheating and corrupt practices as required by law. The accused was therefore acquitted. (Paras 216)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the accused was acting as a public officer and whether he concealed pertinent information from the board, ultimately influencing their decision to approve the sale of shares. (Paras 5-6, 185)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that to sustain the charges, the prosecution had to provide evidence of the accused's influence over the board's decision and clear evidence of deception, both of which were lacking in this case. Thus, the court found the evidence insufficient for a prima facie case. (Paras 213-214)
Result: The accused was acquitted and discharged from both charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused is charged under corrupt practice. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. outline of ingredients for proving corrupt practice. (Para 12 , 19 , 27) |
| 3. court analyses evidence of public officer status. (Para 31 , 74 , 83) |
| 4. defense arguments related to accused's denial of misconduct. (Para 69 , 70 , 72 , 73) |
Suraya Othman J
INTRODUCTION
[1]The accused is charged with two charges, one under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22 of 1970 (‘Ordinance 22’) and another under s 417Penal Code
[2]The accused was brought before the sessions court on 12 February 2004 and the case was transferred to the High Court upon a certificate of the public prosecutor under s 418A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
THE CHARGES
[3]The first charge (amended) against the accused (P3) reads:
Bahawa kamu pada 22hb Oktober 1996 di Bilik Mesyuarat Forum, Fairlane Hotel, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, sebagai seorang penjawat awam, iaitu Pengerusi Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Negeri Sabah (LKTNS), telah melakukan perbuatan rasuah dengan menggunakan kedudukan kamu sebagai Pengerusi LKTNS untuk faedah kewangan kamu, iaitu kamu telah mengambil bahagian dalam membuat keputusan meluluskan cadangan penjualan 16.8 juta saham LKTNS di dalam SAPI Plantations Sdn Bhd kepada Briskmark Enterprise Sdn Bhd yang mana kamu telah dijanjikan oleh Datuk Wasli bin Mohd Said sejumlah 3.36 juta saham dalam SAPI Plantations Sdn Bhd tersebut; dan dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 2(1) Ordinan No. 22 (Kuasa-Kuasa Perlu) Dharurat Tahun 1970.
[2009] 6 MLJ 494 at 500
[4]In essence, the charge preferred against the accused under Ordinance 22 is that at the meeting room of Fairlane Hotel (‘the hotel’), as chairman of the SLDB, and as a public officer he committed corrupt practice by using his position as chairman of SLDB for his financial advantage in that he did take part in making the decision to approve the proposed sale of 16.8 million shares owned by SLDB in SAPI Plantations Sdn Bhd (‘SAPI’) to Briskmark Enterprise Sdn Bhd (‘Briskmark’) wherein the accused was promised 3.36 million of the shares in SAPI by Datuk Wasli bin Mohd Said.
[5]The second charge(amended) against the accused (P4) reads:
Bahawa kamu pada 22hb Oktober 1996 di Bilik Mesyuarat Forum, Fairlane Hotel, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah menipu ahli-ahli mesyuarat Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Negeri Sabah (LKTNS) iaitu dengan secara curangnya menyembunyikan tawaran PPB Sdn Bhd yang kamu ketahui pada 13hb September 1996, yang telah memperuntukkan 5 saham PPB Oil Palms Sdn Bhd bagi 1 saham SAPI Plantations Sdn Bhd di dalam cadangan PPB Oil Palms Sdn Bhd untuk disenaraikan di papan utama Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur, dan dengan itu telah dengan sengaja mendorong ahli-ahli mesyuarat LKTNS untuk meluluskan penjualan 16.8 juta saham LKTNS di dalam SAPI Plantations Sdn Bhd kepada Briskmark Enterprise Sdn Bhd yang mana sekiranya mereka diberitahu mengenai tawaran itu, mereka tidak akan meluluskan penjualan saham tersebut; dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 417 Kanun Keseksaan.
[6]The essence of the second charge is that the accused deceived the members of the board of SLDB by dishonestly concealing to them the offer made by PPB Sdn Bhd (‘PPB’) of which he had knowledge of on 13 September 1996, to allot five PPB Oil Palms Sdn Bhd (‘PPBOP’) shares to every one SAPI share in its proposal to be listed in the Main Board of KLSE and by this concealment the accused did thereby intentionally induced the members of SLDB to approve the sale of 16.8 million shares of SAPI owned by SLDB to Briskmark which they would not have approved had they known of the PPB’s offer.
INGREDIENTS/ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGES
[7]The first charge preferred against the accused is under s 2(1) of Ordinance 22, which reads as follows:
2 Corrupt practice
(1)Any Member of the administration or any Member of Parliament or the State Legislative Ass
