Tulaila Binti Jamaludin

On the court record

Tulaila Binti Jamaludin appears in the reported corpus as counsel for the prosecution in an anti-corruption appeal before the Court of 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, read with 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).

Appearing for the prosecution, her reported work engages the elements the state must establish to make out the agent-gratification offence — the fact of the gratification and the relationship of agency between the recipient and the principal — and the effect of the statutory deeming rule, which completes the offence irrespective of whether the corrupt objective was achieved. The construction of these provisions determines how far the prosecution's proof must reach, and the appeal is a study in the reach of the 2009 Act as applied to the conduct of an agent. Across the linked appeals arising from the same proceedings she stands on the prosecution side of the record, defending the convictions and the findings made below. The reported matters mark Tulaila Binti Jamaludin as counsel engaged in appellate anti-corruption prosecution, arguing the construction and application of the gratification offences under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to prove them at trial. The linked appeals, all arising from the same underlying proceedings, turn on whether the evidence adduced against the accused was sufficient to sustain the findings made below, which is the ground on which the prosecution's defence of a conviction is typically won or lost, and place her squarely within the field of appellate anti-corruption prosecution under the 2009 Act.