Public Prosecutor v Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad

Appellant(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

Respondent(s): Mohd Isa Bin Abdul Samad

• YA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan
• YA Dato' Lee Swee Seng
• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali

• The respondent, as Chairman of FELDA and Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FICSB), was charged with one count of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and nine counts of corruption for receiving bribes under Section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act).
• The High Court acquitted the respondent of the CBT charge but convicted him on all nine bribery charges, imposing a six-year concurrent imprisonment for each charge and a cumulative fine of RM15,450,000.00.
• The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the respondent's appeal, acquitting and discharging him of all nine bribery charges, which led to the Public Prosecutor appealing to the Federal Court.

• Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the prosecution to prove the element of soliciting gratification to establish a prima facie case for receiving gratification under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act.
• Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied Section 50(1) of the MACC Act, which provides for a presumption of corrupt receipt of gratification, and erred in concluding that the presumption was rebutted or misplaced.
• Whether the respondent's acquittal on the criminal breach of trust charge negated the factual basis for the bribery charges or created two distinct prosecution narratives, thereby prejudicing the respondent's defence.

• The Federal Court unanimously allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restoring the High Court's conviction and sentence for all nine bribery charges.
• The Court held that to trigger the presumption under Section 50(1) of the MACC Act, the prosecution only needs to prove the *factum* of receipt of gratification, and the other elements (corruptly received as a reward for the matters in the charge) are presumed.
• The Court found that the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility and the finding of the respondent's receipt of money were correct and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and the respondent's bare denial was insufficient to rebut the Section 50(1) presumption on a balance of probabilities.