The learned Sessions Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent of twenty-two (22) charges under section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”). The charges concerned the alleged receipt of gratification amounting to RM44,700.00, which was said to have been deposited into the Respondent’s RHB Bank account on multiple occasions between July 2017 and December 2018. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant filed the present appeals before this Court. In the considered view of this Court, once the statutory presumption is triggered, the evidential and legal burden no longer rests on the prosecution to negate the accused person’s explanation. Instead, the burden shifts to the accused person to rebut the presumption. As such, there is a serious misdirection of law on the part of the learned Sessions Court Judge. This misdirection in law materially affected the assessment of the defence and undermined the ultimate finding of acquittal. Upon consideration, this Court is satisfied that the acquittal entered by the learned Sessions Court Judge is unsafe and ought to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal by the Public Prosecutor is allowed. The order of acquittal and discharge is hereby set aside.

8 cases · Part of The learned Sessions Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent of twenty-two (22) charges under section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”). The charges concerned the alleged receipt of gratification amounting to RM44,700.00, which was said to have been deposited into the Respondent’s RHB Bank account on multiple occasions between July 2017 and December 2018. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant filed the present appeals before this Court. In the considered view of this Court, once the statutory presumption is triggered, the evidential and legal burden no longer rests on the prosecution to negate the accused person’s explanation. Instead, the burden shifts to the accused person to rebut the presumption. As such, there is a serious misdirection of law on the part of the learned Sessions Court Judge. This misdirection in law materially affected the assessment of the defence and undermined the ultimate finding of acquittal. Upon consideration, this Court is satisfied that the acquittal entered by the learned Sessions Court Judge is unsafe and ought to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal by the Public Prosecutor is allowed. The order of acquittal and discharge is hereby set aside.