Mohammad Rafaei Bin Adnan

On the court record

Mohammad Rafaei Bin Adnan appears in the reported corpus as counsel for the respondent in an anti-corruption appeal before the Court of Appeal. The reported matter concerns offences under the Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009), and the catchwords set out the statutory framework in issue: the agent-gratification offence under seksyen 17(a) — giving or receiving gratification by an agent — read with seksyen 19, which provides that the offence is committed tanpa mengambil kira maksud tidak dilaksanakan atau perkara tidak berkaitan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan principal (regardless of whether the purpose was carried out, or whether the matter was unconnected with the affairs or business of the principal), and the penalty provision in seksyen 24(1).

Appearing on the respondent's side of the appeal, his reported work engages the defence perspective on the agent-gratification offence: whether the elements of the offence — the fact of the gratification and the agency relationship — were properly established below, and the effect of the deeming rule in section 19 that completes the offence irrespective of whether the corrupt objective was achieved. The construction of these provisions determines how far the prosecution's proof must go and where the line falls between a completed offence and conduct that escapes it, making the appeal a study in the reach of the 2009 Act. Across the linked appeals arising from the same proceedings, he stands as counsel for the respondent, and the matter marks Mohammad Rafaei Bin Adnan as counsel engaged in appellate anti-corruption litigation, arguing the construction and application of the gratification offences under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 from the respondent's standpoint. The linked appeals, all arising from the same underlying proceedings, turn less on the abstract reach of the offence than on whether the evidence adduced against the accused was sufficient to sustain the findings made below — which is the ground on which an appeal of this kind is typically won or lost, and the focus of the respondent's argument.