Public Prosecutor v Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman

Appellant(s): Pendakwa Raya

Respondent(s): Syed Saddiq Bin Syed Abdul Rahman

• YAA Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Bin Jais
• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah

• The respondent, then head of a political youth wing, was charged with abetting criminal breach of trust (in relation to a RM1 million withdrawal from the youth wing's bank account), criminal misappropriation (of RM120,000 raised from fundraising events), and two counts of money laundering (in relation to RM100,000 transferred into an investment account).
• The High Court convicted the respondent on all charges, principally finding that the withdrawal of RM1 million breached provisions of the party's constitution restricting expenditure without prior approval, and that the fundraising proceeds were held on trust for the party rather than belonging personally to the respondent.
• The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the respondent's appeal, set aside all convictions and sentences, and the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Federal Court against that decision.

• Whether the Court of Appeal erred in construing the party constitution's restriction on "perbelanjaan" (expenditure) as not extending to "pengeluaran" (withdrawal), such that the withdrawal of RM1 million did not breach any direction of law and thus could not found a criminal breach of trust charge.
• Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the RM120,000 fundraising proceeds belonged to the respondent personally (as reimbursement for election campaign expenses) rather than to the party or its treasurer, given that ownership of property by "a person other than the accused" is an essential ingredient of criminal misappropriation under section 403 of the Penal Code.
• Whether unexplained inconsistencies in a key prosecution witness's testimony, coupled with evidence of improper pressure exerted by investigating officers on witnesses, undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case and whether the trial judge had erred in failing to consider this.

• The Federal Court held that the Court of Appeal correctly construed "perbelanjaan" according to its plain and ordinary meaning as "expenses" and not "withdrawal", and thus the withdrawal of RM1 million did not violate the party constitution or constitute the actus reus of criminal breach of trust; the abetment charge accordingly failed.
• The Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove the RM120,000 belonged to a person other than the respondent, a necessary element of section 403 of the Penal Code, given the evidence that the funds were raised for and always intended for the respondent's own election campaign expenses, which he had already incurred; consequently the money-laundering charges (predicated on the section 403 offence) also failed.
• The Court further agreed with the Court of Appeal that unexplained inconsistencies in the key witness's evidence, viewed together with credible evidence of improper pressure exerted on witnesses during investigation, undermined that witness's credibility and constituted a matter the trial judge had failed to consider, providing additional grounds to dismiss the prosecution's appeals and affirm the acquittal.