The Federal Court orders prosecutors to reconsider their appeal against Syed Saddiq’s acquittal on CBT and money laundering charges.
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has ordered the prosecution to take one week to formally reconsider its appeal against the acquittal of Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman.
The court granted this “cooling-off” period for the Attorney General’s Chambers to decide whether to proceed with the appeal on charges of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property and money laundering.
Court of Appeal President Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, leading a three-judge panel, said the prosecution must deliberate and declare its position.
“If you (the prosecution) are still capable of proving your case, proceed… but if, upon review, you find it is not sufficiently strong, then you must notify us,” said Justice Abu Bakar.
He stated the parties must inform the court of their decision within one week.
The panel has reviewed submissions and will now draft its judgment, directing the prosecution to file additional written arguments within the week.
On June 25, the Court of Appeal acquitted Syed Saddiq, overturning his High Court conviction and sentence of seven years’ jail, caning and an RM10 million fine.
The Attorney General’s Chambers filed an appeal to the Federal Court the following day.
Syed Saddiq was accused of abetting Rafiq Hakim in the criminal breach of trust of RM1 million belonging to Bersatu’s youth wing Armada.
He faced a separate charge of misappropriating RM120,000 belonging to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise.
The former minister was also accused of money laundering by transferring RM50,000 into his personal Amanah Saham Bumiputera account.
Defence counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik argued his client derived no financial benefit from the RM1 million withdrawal.
“The RM1 million was meant for Armada’s programmes such as COVID-19 assistance, Raya, Ramadan and welfare,” he said during the hearing.
Hisyam contended the Court of Appeal found no evidence of dishonesty by the assistant treasurer who withdrew the funds.
He also submitted that the misappropriation charge was defective and groundless.
The lawyer argued the appellate court committed no legal error in finding the predicate offence was not proven.
