JUDGMENT

Avinder Singh Gill JC:

A. Background

[1] This is an Appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court at Johor Bahru on 25 September 2025, where the appellant was convicted on three (3) charges under s 25(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ("MACC Act 2009") and sentenced to twelve (12) months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Section 25(1) of the MACC Act 2009 reads:

"Any person to whom any gratification is given, promised, or offered, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall report such gift, promise or offer together with the name, if known, of the person who gave, promised or offered such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer. "

Section 25(2) of the MACC Act 2009 reads:

"Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both."

[2] In his Petition of Appeal, the appellant challenges the conviction and sentences, contending that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law and fact by:

(a) Failing to conduct a maximum evaluation of all evidence as required under the Criminal Procedure Code;

(b) Misapplying the statutory ingredients of s 25(1) MACC Act 2009;

(c) Erroneously rejecting the defence as an afterthought;

(d) Convicting the appellant without proof of the specific purpose of the alleged gratification as pleaded in the charges; and

(e) Ignoring an allegation of conflict which prejudiced the appellant's case when the Investigating Officer was also the complainant.

[3] The Appellant was, at all material times, an Assistant Marine Officer, whose duties included carrying out Flag State Control ['FSC'] inspections on vessels, including those owned by companies associated with the prosecution's key witness.

[4] The Appellant, in his evidence at the trial, denied that the alleged gratifications were an offence as he had taken the position that the sum of RM1,800.00 was for a sponsorship of a golf tournament; and that the two sums of RM2,000.00 each were unrelated to expediting FSC inspections, which inspections were in any event conducted according to the relevant procedures.

[5] The Appellant argues that the learned Sessions Court Judge dismissed his defence as being an afterthought, despite it having been raised early in the trial, and that no direct evidence proved that the money was a gratification that required reporting to the MACC.

[6] In asserting that the prosecution failed to establish corrupt intent or the statutory ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant seeks to have the convictions set aside and quashed, and seeks an Order of Full Acquittal on all three charges. If this is granted, then the sentences imposed automatically become redundant.

[7] Based on the above, the appellant contends that the conviction is unsafe and ought to be set aside on several grounds as summarised above in para 2 above.

B. The Charges Proffered

[8] There were three charges proffered against the appellant under s 25(1) of the MACC Act 2009, namely:

(a) RM2,000.00 was credited into his account on 6 April 2019 by one Hamidah binti Wagey on behalf of Wan Fauzi bin Wan Kamaruddin, the owner of Alam Group [SP12] to expedite 'Flag State Control' for ships owned by companies controlled by SP12.

(b) RM1,800.00 was credited into his account on 12 September 2019 at the CIMB Tampoi branch, by transfer from the Maybank account of Syarikat Alamgala Resources Sdn Bhd to expedite 'Flag State Control' for ships owned by SP12.

(c) RM2,000.00 was credited into his account on 30 July 2020 by Zefri Bin Abdul Khadir on behalf of SP12 to expedite 'Flag State Control' for ships owned by SP12.

[9] The Charges are repeated here:

(a) The 1st Charge

"Bahawa kamu, pada 6 April 2019, jam lebih kurang 1.40 tengah hari di Maybank Cawangan Johor Bahru, Lot M1-22, Level 1, Jb City Square, 106-1