By a 2-1 majority, the Federal Court finds no appealable error in the Court of Appeal’s decision to acquit Muar MP Syed Saddiq on four charges involving Armada funds.
PUTRAJAYA: By a 2-1 majority decision today, the Federal Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish any error in the Court of Appeal’s acquittal of Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman on four charges of abetment of criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation of property and money laundering involving Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda (Armada) funds.
Justice Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Justice Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah formed the majority, ruling that the appellate court was right to find that the prosecution had not established the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In their judgment, the two judges found no appealable error on the part of the Court of Appeal that would warrant Federal Court intervention.
On the abetment charge, Justice Che Mohd Ruzima pointed out that Syed Saddiq, as an abettor, could not be said to have abetted Rafiq Hakim Razali, the former Armada assistant treasurer, because Rafiq Hakim himself was never charged.
He said it was the prosecution’s contention that Rafiq Hakim had committed CBT after allegedly receiving instructions from Syed Saddiq to transfer the funds.
“Even without proper proof, labeling PW13 (13th prosecution witness Rafiq Hakim) to have committed an offence just from his confession is not proof in jurisprudence,” he said.
Justice Che Mohd Ruzima also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the RM120,000, purportedly misused by Syed Saddiq, belonged to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE).
“On the contrary to the evidence, the money came from two fundraising events in Muar, Johor and DePalma Hotel, Ampang for the specific reason to fund his political campaign.
“Based on the evidence, the RM120,000 does not belong to ABBE, or PW13 or someone else. The money collected originally belonged to donors, but it has changed hands to Syed Saddiq to fund his campaign in Muar, making him the beneficial owner of the RM120,000,” he said.
He said based on the finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the Section 403 (misusing RM120,000) charge against Syed Saddiq, the money laundering charges could not be sustained.
Justice Che Mohd Ruzima said he disagreed with the prosecution’s contention that the Court of Appeal had made a “wild accusation” against the prosecution or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
“I am of the view that the COA (Court of Appeal) has referred, analysed and dealt with the material relevant evidence pertaining to the issue before making the finding of fact that there might be truth in the defence’s contention concerning PW13’s testimony against Syed Saddiq.
“From the evidence adduced at the prosecution case, it is not plainly wrong for the COA in agreeing with the defence’s contention that PW13’s evidence might have been tailored to appease the MACC. The prosecution’s allegation that the COA made a “wild accusation” is baseless and uncalled for,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Sequerah observed that the prosecution’s main objection to the Court of Appeal’s decision centred on the appellate court’s conclusion that the RM120,000 belonged to the respondent and had been applied toward his election campaign, which he subsequently treated as a reimbursement for the RM170,000 he had personally outlaid during the campaign.
He further noted that the Court of Appeal’s finding on this point rested on PW13’s confirmation, given during re-examination, that the ABBE account had been pre-cleared for the respondent’s fundraising activities.
Justice Sequerah said it was established that the RM120,000 was collected from the fundraising events and subsequently transferred from ABBE’s account to the respondent’s Maybank account in four transactions of RM30,000 each on the respondent’s instructions.
“The COA then proceeded to analyse the actus reus of the section as being predicated upon the fact that the property that is the subject of the alleged offence must belong to a person other than the respondent. Having done that, the COA then evaluated the available evidence adduced in order to determine this very question,” he said.
Justice Sequerah further said the COA found no evidence that the RM120,000 belonged to either ABBE or Armada. He said PW13 had never testified that the RM120,000 belonged to ABBE.
He said the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the withdrawal of RM1 million from Armada’s account by PW13 could not be said to have been used or disposed of in violation of a direction of law.
“The principal offence of CBT cannot stand as the RM1 million withdrawn by PW13 was never misappropriated but was legitimately used for Armada’s programmes,” he added.
Meanwhile, Court of Appeal President Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais, in his dissenting judgment, allowed the prosecution’s appeal against Syed Saddiq in part.
He upheld the politician’s acquittal on the first charge (abetment), but convicted him on the second charge (criminal breach of trust), as well as the third and fourth charges (money laundering).
In a six-page summary judgment, Justice Abu Bakar said dishonest misappropriation had been proven, as the donors were never informed by the respondent that he would take the money and place it into his personal accounts as reimbursement for his alleged campaign expenses.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the fund-raising activities were held to reimburse the respondent for any expenses incurred towards his election prior to those fund-raising activities.
“Further, not a single donor was told that the respondent will use any donation to reimburse the latter for his expenses allegedly incurred much earlier than the donors making the donations, which is prior to the beginning of the election campaign,” he said.
Justice Abu Bakar noted that the Court of Appeal had acquitted Syed Saddiq on the basis that the RM120,000 transferred into his Maybank account by Rafiq Hakim on his instruction, belonged to him.
“Is the Court of Appeal right in saying this amount of money belongs to the respondent? This is crucial because once it is shown this is not the case, then the whole basis for the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow the respondent’s appeal could not stand, at least for this charge.
“I respectfully differ and would say the money does not belong to the respondent. The money is from the donors through the fund-raising activities.
“The money is the donors’ money and not the respondent’s money. It is meant for the respondent’s election campaign. It is not for the respondent to use it as he pleases,” he added.
For the money laundering charges, Justice Abu Bakar said the respondent never denied that RM50,000 was deposited into his ASB account from his Maybank account.
“The money is from unlawful activity as it came from the donors for his election campaign. But this purpose for the election campaign was not achieved as explained earlier. That is why the money is from unlawful activity,” he said.
He then sentenced Syed Saddiq to six months’ jail and one stroke of the cane for the RM120,000 misappropriation, and a further six months’ jail plus a RM5 million fine on each of the two money laundering charges, with an additional two years’ jail in default of each fine.
The dissenting justice conceded, however, that his convictions on the remaining charges were effectively moot given his fellow judges’ disagreement, while graciously noting their entitlement to their own views, prompting applause from the public gallery.
On June 25, 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed Syed Saddiq’s appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence of seven years’ jail, two strokes of the cane and a RM10 million fine, which had been imposed by the High Court on Nov 9, 2023.
