YOUGANESPARAN A/L MUNIANDY v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

w-09-41-02-2021 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 5 March 2025 • W-09-41-02/2021 • 86 min read
12 cases cited (0 SG, 12 foreign)

Catchwords

Seksyen 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kesalahan menerima suapan - Seksyen 50 (1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Anggapan dalam kesalahan tertentu - Seksyen 52 Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Keterangan rakan sejenayah dan ejen provokasi – Isu: (A) Sama ada elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 16 (a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan - (B) Kredibiliti SP8 - (C) Sama ada tertuduh berjaya mematahkan anggapan yang berbangkit - (D) Sama ada ID21 wajar diterima masuk sebagai keterangan - Seksyen 41A Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 - Kebolehterimaan keterangan dokumentar - (E) Sama ada Penama Prakash merujuk kepada tertuduh - Tiada kesangsian berkaitan isu identiti sebenar tertuduh - (F) Ketidakcekapan peguam tertuduh terdahulu – Tiada kepincangan dan salah laksana keadilan

Practice Areas

Seksyen 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Delivered

Counsel (8)

Joshua Aaron Keet Firm Dato' Sreesanthan Eliathamby Counsel Appellant Joshua Andran Counsel Appellant Loh Suk Hwa Counsel Appellant M Manoharan Counsel Appellant Muhammad Asraf Bin Mohamd Tahir Counsel Prosecution Natrah Fareha Rahmat Counsel Prosecution Siti Amirah Muhammad Ali Counsel Prosecution

Parties (2)

Pendakwa Raya Respondent Youganesparan a/l Muniandy Appellant

Case Significance

YOUGANESPARAN A/L MUNIANDY v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated March 5, 2025 (citation: w-09-41-02-2021). <p>A former Star newspaper employee was convicted of corruptly receiving RM20,000 at Dome Cafe, The Intermark, purportedly to be given to a MACC officer to settle an investigation, and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and RM100,000 fine. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction, finding the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant failed to rebut the s.50(1) MACC Act presumption, but reduced the imprisonment to 20 months.</p> The panel comprised Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim, Azman bin Abdullah and Azmi bin Ariffin, with Azmi bin Ariffin delivering the judgment.

Summary

A former Star newspaper employee was convicted of corruptly receiving RM20,000 at Dome Cafe, The Intermark, purportedly to be given to a MACC officer to settle an investigation, and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and RM100,000 fine. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction, finding the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant failed to rebut the s.50(1) MACC Act presumption, but reduced the imprisonment to 20 months.

What was the outcome of YOUGANESPARAN A/L MUNIANDY v Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]?

<p>A former Star newspaper employee was convicted of corruptly receiving RM20,000 at Dome Cafe, The Intermark, purportedly to be given to a MACC offic...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
s 114(e)
MACC Act 2009
s 50(1)

Cases Cited (12)

UK (1)
[1974] 2 All ER 840
MY (11)
[1969] 2 MLJ 89 [1969] MLRA 382 [1977] 1 MLJ 180 [1977] 1 MLRH 438 [1997] 3 CLJ 150 [2001] 1 CLJ 381 [2007] 4 CLJ 337 [2009] 1 CLJ 717 [2009] 8 MLJ 411 [2017] 1 CLJ 617 [2021] 5 MLJ 8112