Ahmad Jefri Azizi Bin Mohamad Sukri v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

A corruption conviction under section 17(a) of the MACC Act 2009 overturned on appeal because the prosecution failed to prove the object of the gratification was contrary to law.

This High Court decision is a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for a corruption offence under section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. The appellant, an agent, had been charged with corruptly obtaining or attempting to obtain gratification as an inducement to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs — namely, to refrain from taking legal action against a named individual for an offence of possessing an expired Border Pass contrary to section 15(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63. At trial the Sessions Court had found that the prosecution established a prima facie case, called on the appellant to enter his defence, convicted him, and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000.

The appeal turned on the elements the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under section 17(a), and in particular on the character of the act that the gratification was intended to procure. The Court held that, for the offence to be made out, the prosecution had to prove that the purpose or object of the gratification was something contrary to law — that the inducement was directed at an unlawful act or omission. It was not enough to show the receipt of gratification in connection with the principal's affairs; the corrupt object had itself to be established as unlawful. Measuring the prosecution's case against that requirement, the Court found that this essential element had not been proved.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, and ordered the appellant discharged and acquitted of the charge. The judgment is a useful illustration of the elements of a section 17(a) MACC Act offence, and in particular of the requirement that the prosecution prove the object of the gratification to be contrary to law before an agent can be convicted of corruptly receiving it.