Introduction
On 13th July 2026, the Federal Court in a 2-1 split acquitted YB Syed Saddiq (“SS“) from all criminal charges. SS was the former Minister of Youth & Sports, as well as the current Muar Member of Parliament.
All 3 judges of the apex court panel had written grounds of judgment, which has recently been made available – the majority was comprised of Justices Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Dato’ Collin Lawrene Sequerah, while President of the Court of Appeal Dato’ Sri Abu Bakar Jais formed the minority. For brevity purposes, this summary will only focus on the decision of the majority.
This decision arose from the Public Prosecutor’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse a conviction decision reached by the High Court, and to acquit SS from all criminal charges.
The Criminal Charges
There are essentially 4 charges mounted against SS:
First, the Abetment Charge – SS was charged for abetting one Rafiq Hakim Razali (“PW13“) in committing criminal breach of trust (“CBT“) under Section 405 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The crux of this charge relates to the withdrawal of RM1million from Armada (the young wing of political party Bersatu), which was allegedly done in breach of Article 24.8 of Bersatu’s Constitution which required Supreme Council approval for expenditure above RM500,000. At the material time, SS was head of Armada.
Second, the Section 403 Charge – SS was charged for dishonest misappropriation of property under Section 403 of the Penal Code. This charge relates to the alleged misappropriation of RM120,000 raised from political fundraising in the lead-up to the 14th General Election, which the prosecution alleges belongs to Armada and/or a company set up by PW13 named Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (“ABBE“), instead of SS.
Third, the AMLA Charges – SS was charged for money laundering under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. This was in relation to proceeds from the Section 403 Charge (i.e. the predicate offence), where the alleged money laundering occurred when SS transferred the said RM120,000 to his Amanah Saham Bumiputera (“ASB“) accounts.
The Abetment Charge
In summary, Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali decided as follows:
(i) A mere instruction to withdraw money cannot be equated with the actus reus of CBT under Section 405 of the Penal Code, which is confined to 5 specific limbs (misappropriation, conversion to own use, use/disposal in violation of law, use/disposal in violation of a legal contract or wilfully suffering another to do any of the previous 4 limbs). A withdrawal is “at its highest an act of preparation and not a complete offence”.
(ii) Article 24.8 of Bersatu’s Constitution restricting “perbelanjaan” (“expenses”) exceeding RM500,000 could not be read to include “pengeluaran” (“withdrawal”) — these are distinct concepts. Hence, when the RM1million was withdrawn, Article 24.8 did not apply & there was no need to obtain Bersatu’s Supreme Council approval beforehand.
(iii) In any event, since the money was ultimately used for Armada’s programmes covering Covid-19 aid & Ramadhan/Aidil Fitri programs with no personal gain to SS or PW13, no dishonesty was established, which was an element in a CBT charge to be proven.
(iv) As PW13 (the alleged principal offender) was never shown to have committed CBT, the abetment charge against SS necessarily failed.
Dato’ Collin Lawrence Sequerah’s judgment was largely in line with the above, as follows:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct in finding that “perbelanjaan” in Article 24.8 of Bersatu’s Constitution means “expenses”, not “withdrawal” (“pengeluaran”) — a plain and ordinary reading leaves no ambiguity, and there was “no necessity to indulge in any form of mental gymnastics”. The one-off RM1million withdrawal hence could not be equated with “expenses”, and Bersatu’s Supreme Council approval was never required in the first place.
(ii) Crucially, the underlying principal offence against PW13 could not stand either — the evidence showed the funds were legitimately used for Armada’s programmes, and PW13 could not be said to have acted dishonestly. As the principal offence collapsed, the abetment charge against SS necessarily fell away too.
(iii) PW13’s own evidence on the alleged instruction to “clearkan” the money by SS was inconsistent and contradictory, with contradictions to be resolved in the accused’s favour.
The Section 403 Charge
In summary, Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali decided as follows:
(i) The essential ingredient to prove dishonest misappropriation of property under Section 403 of the Penal Code is that the property must belong to someone other than the accused.
(ii) Once the trial judge made finding that the impugned RM120,000 was raised for the use of SS to finance his election expenses, it legally establishes that the money belonged to SS. In fact, the evidence showed that donors gave money to SS for his campaign, making SS the “beneficial owner” of the RM120,000. Hence, the essential element of property belonging to another person was absent from the outset – SS could not misappropriate his own property.
(iii) The trial judge erred in finding that the transfer of funds from ABBE’s account to SS’ ASB account as evidence of guilt. The transfer was a legitimate step to use funds meant for SS, and it was not an illegal or dishonest act.
(iv) The testimony of the prosecution’s main witness, PW13, was riddled with inconsistencies. PW13 gave contradictory evidence on the fundamental question of who owned the impugned RM120,000, alternating between general use of Armada and SS’ election campaign.
(v) The prosecution’s failure to call the organisers of the said fundraisers, Mohamed Amshar Aziz (DW2) and Siti Nurul Hidayah (DW4), left a critical gap in the prosecution’s narrative & warranted the invocation of adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
(vi) The “reimbursement” defence was accepted: SS had spent RM170,000 for his election campaign, and the impugned RM120,000 effectively became his personal money. MACC’s investigating office admitted that she did not investigate this defence at all, which MACC was duty-bound to do.
Dato’ Collin Lawrence Sequerah’s grounds of judgment can be summarised as follows:
(i) The essential ingredients of a Section 403 of the Penal Code charge required that the property belong to someone other than the accused. The Court of Appeal correctly found no evidence that the RM120,000 belonged to Armada or ABBE.
(ii) Material witnesses who organised the said fundraisers (DW2 and DW4) were not called by the prosecution, triggering adverse inference under s.114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
(iii) The funds were found to be donations made to and for Syed Saddiq personally for his election campaign, held in the ABBE account merely as an intermediary/trust arrangement, with PW13 accountable to Syed Saddiq — not the reverse.
(iv) The “reimbursement” defence was accepted: SS had spent RM170,000 of his own/borrowed money on his campaign in advance (evidenced by his declaration to the Election Commission, D91), and the later-received donations were treated as substituting those funds. By the time of the ASB transfers, the money had become his personal monies.
(v) Furthermore, the High Court’s judgment was internally inconsistent — having found the money was for SS’ election campaign, it then illogically found a prima facie case of misappropriation against him.
The AMLA Charges
Both judges in the majority concluded that, since the predicate offence for the AMLA Charges (namely the Section 403 Charge) has not been established, it goes without saying that the AMLA Charges could not be sustained.
Improper Pressure by MACC On Prosecution Witnesses
In a significant development, both judges in the majority took into account the improper pressure exerted by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC“) officers on prosecution witnesses in an attempt to tailor their evidence against SS. This was an additional reason to find that the conviction was unsafe & lead to a decision to acquit SS.
Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali discussed MACC’s improper pressure in the context of the Abetment Charge. The learned Judge agreed with the defence that the evidence establishes a “strong reasonbale inference” that MACC may have exerted improper pressure on the witnesses, particularly PW13 to “tailor his evidence to suit the prosecution’s case”. The learned Judge further held that “[t]he defence’s contention that PW13 had succumbed to pressure of being investigated and interrogated to the extent that he admitted he had committed CBT when questioned by the prosecution and gave evidence against SS cannot be ignored”. There are all material & relevant matters to be considered, and the failure of the trial judge to do so was a “clear misdirection which resulted in a serious failure of justice” to SS.
Dato’ Collin Lawrence Sequerah found that there was “credible evidence given by PW13, PW10 and DW12 that they were subject to some measure of improper pressure by the officers from MACC”. The learned Judge agreed with the Court of Appeal that “there arises a reasonable inference…that PW13 was constrained to tailor his evidence to suit the prosecution case”, and that this “necessarily impacted upon [PW13]’s credibility when giving evidence”. His Lordship agreed with the Court of Appeal that this critical aspect of the defence was never considered by the trial judge, and is another cogent reason to dismiss the prosecution’s appeal.
Key Takeaways
The decision of the majority presents several key takeaways for practitioners & politicians who intend to fundraise for election campaigns.
First, in relation to a CBT offence under Section 405 of the Penal Code, there must be a distinction between mere preparatory acts (such as a withdrawal of money) and the actus reus of CBT which is confined to the 5 specific limbs in statute. The former does not constitute actus reus to justify a conviction under CBT.
Second, as was decided by the judges on the Section 403 Charge, this case provides useful guidance on how courts may treat the beneficial ownership of publicly raised campaign funds. Legal ownership can pass to the political candidate if the fundraising event itself is clear that such event was meant to raise funds for that particular political candidate. Election candidates are also allowed to spent their own money first, and then “reimburse” the same via claiming such monies raised in later fundraising events – transfers to that effect are not illegal or misappropriation.
Third, the majority of the Federal Court made a critical finding that, if there is evidence of improper pressure by investigative agencies on prosecution witnesses to tailor their evidence against the accused, the trial judge must consider the same (failing which it amounts to a misdirection in law) & it can form a ground to acquit the accused. This is useful guidance for the defence in criminal trials. It also sends a clear public policy signal that investigative agencies (such as the MACC & Royal Malaysian Police) as well as the Attorney General’s Chambers that they must conduct their investigations and/or prosecutions fairly, independently & in accordance with the rule of law – failing which an acquittal is the end-result.
Our Lim Wei Jiet & Nevyn Vinosh Venudran acted as co-counsels for YB Syed Saddiq at the Federal Court. The team was lead by & comprised of Datuk Hisham Teh Poh Teik, Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, Kee Wei Lon, Devanandan a/l Subramaniam, Low Wei Loke, Siti Summayah binti Ahmad Jaafar, Mohammed Khairuzzaman bin Mohammed Ridha & Ee Gen You.
The prosecution was comprised of Datuk Wan Shaharuddin bin Wan Ladin, Dato’ Ahmad Akram bin Gharib, Farah Ezlin Yusof Khan, Law Chin How, Nurul Qistini Qamarul Abrar, Muhammad Asraf bin Mohamed Tahir & Wan Nur Iman binti Wan Ahmad Afzal.
