Wan Haron Sukri & Nordin

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the construction of the corruption offences under the Penal Code and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, and how a failure to produce key documentary evidence can undermine a criminal-breach-of-trust prosecution.

Wan Haron Sukri & Nordin appears in the corpus as counsel in criminal litigation concentrated on corruption and criminal breach of trust, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.

A prominent matter concerns corruption by a public servant. Acting for the appellant, the firm appeared in an appeal against a conviction under section 165 of the Penal Code for a public servant accepting a valuable thing without consideration, where the court examined the ingredients of the offence, a point of construction on the authoritative Malay text of the anti-corruption legislation distinguishing menyetuju terima (accepts) from bersetuju untuk menyetuju terima (agrees to accept), and whether the release of a detained vessel before the date of payment negated any connection with the accused's official functions.

The firm also acted for the appellant in a separate corruption appeal under section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, argued in Malay, where the accused had been convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a fine, and the appeal contended that the prosecution had failed to prove an element of the charge concerning the corrupt purpose of accepting a gratification and that the trial judge had failed to consider the defence evidence judicially and comprehensively, the appeal being allowed.

In a further matter, acting for the respondent, the firm appeared in an appeal concerning abetment under section 109 read with section 409 of the Penal Code, criminal breach of trust by a person in a fiduciary position, where the failure to produce documentary evidence, including crucial minutes of a board meeting and audio recordings, was said to undermine the prosecution's case under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The firm's record is a criminal-litigation practice concentrated on corruption and breach-of-trust prosecutions.