Muhammad Syahri Bin Adnan

On the court record

Muhammad Syahri Bin Adnan appears in the reported corpus as counsel for the respondent in a Court of Appeal anti-corruption appeal arising under the Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009). The linked appeals turn on the agent-gratification offence under seksyen 17(a) of the Act, the deeming provision in seksyen 19 — under which the giving or receiving of gratification by an agent is an offence 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 fixed by seksyen 24(1).

His reported appearance is on the respondent's side of the appeal, and the work engages the appellate scrutiny of a corruption conviction: whether the trial court's findings on the fact of the gratification and on the agency relationship were reasonably open to it, and how the statutory presumptions and the deeming rule in section 19 bear on the sufficiency of the prosecution's proof. Because the offence is complete once the gratification and the agency are shown, irrespective of the corrupt objective being achieved, the argument centres on the correctness of the findings below rather than on any incompleteness in the statutory elements. The matter is characteristic of appellate anti-corruption litigation, in which the construction of the gratification offences and the standard of appellate interference with a trial court's findings are decisive. The reported appearance marks Muhammad Syahri Bin Adnan as counsel engaged, on the respondent's side, in the appellate litigation of offences under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. Because he appears alongside co-counsel for the respondent across the same linked appeals, his reported work is most readily understood as part of a coordinated challenge to the convictions, directed at the adequacy of the evidence adduced below rather than at any defect in the statutory offence itself, and argued within the appellate framework that governs interference with a trial court's findings.