Pendakwa Raya v MOHD ZAIRUL BIN MAHMUD

Case Significance

Illustrates the sentencing considerations for indirectly dealing with terrorist property under section 130Q(1) of the Penal Code — the seriousness of the offence balanced against genuine mitigation, the significance of dated and non-continuing conduct, and the fixing of concurrent terms running from the date of arrest.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns the sentence imposed on the accused following his guilty plea to two charges under section 130Q(1) of the Penal Code — indirectly dealing with terrorist property. The charges alleged that, on two occasions in February and May 2015, the accused had knowingly dealt with the property of a person identified as a terrorist linked to the Islamic State (IS) group, by permitting deposits of RM5,000 into, and withdrawals of RM5,000 and RM1,000 from, a bank account for that person's benefit. Each charge carried a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment or a fine, with forfeiture of the property dealt with. The accused pleaded guilty, understood the nature and consequences of his plea, and the court proceeded to sentence after hearing submissions on aggravation and mitigation. His arrest, in September 2023, had followed a counter-terrorism investigation.

In assessing sentence the court had regard to the principle that the sentencing court considers circumstances that mitigate the crime rather than matters personal to the offender unconnected with the offence, while striking a proper balance between mercy and the harm caused, and to comparable cases including one in which a term of two years and six months was imposed for facilitating a transfer to a terrorist's family. Examining the charges, the agreed facts and the exhibits, the court noted that the offences had occurred in February and May 2015 and that there was no evidence of the accused continuing the same conduct after those dates, from which it inferred that he had become remorseful.

The court sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment on the charges, to run concurrently from the date of arrest. The judgment illustrates the sentencing considerations for terrorist-property offences under section 130Q, including the treatment of dated, non-continuing conduct and the point from which imprisonment runs.