Prosecution lists 24 grounds why Appeals Court erred in acquitting Isa Samad
In the petition filed at the Federal Court on June 26, the prosecution is seeking to reinstate the High Court's 2012 decision, which found Mohd Isa guilty and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and a fine of RM15.45mil, in default 18 years in prison.
A check on the court's e-filing system showed that the case management has been scheduled for Monday (July 7).
In the petition of appeal, the prosecution argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law in overturning the High Court's findings, which established that Mohd Isa had instructed his former special political officer, Muhammad Zahid Md Arip, to solicit bribes from a Gegasan Abadi Properties Sdn Bhd board member, Ikhwan Zaidel.
The prosecution contended it had presented evidence that following two meetings, Mohd Isa had indirectly instructed Muhammad Zahid to solicit bribes from Ikhwan, and that Muhammad Zahid acted on the instruction and then handed over the bribes in stages to Mohd Isa.
The prosecution also said the Court of Appeal was wrong in law in finding there was evidence from Ikhwan indicating that Mohd Isa had never requested gratification from him in the two meetings with him in his office.
"The Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when they disturbed the factual finding made by the High Court judge that Mohd Isa had instructed Muhammad Zahid to request and receive bribes from Ikhwan indirectly when the respondent (Mohd Isa) uttered the words: "If they give anything later, you just take it" (kalau diorang bagi apa-apa nanti kau ambil lah) to Muhammad Zahid," it said in its petition of appeal.
The prosecution said Muhammad Zahid, who was one of the prosecution's witnesses, had understood the words to mean that anything given by Ikhwan should be accepted by him on behalf of Mohd Isa.
It said the Court of Appeal made a contrary finding that the statement could not, in a literal sense, be interpreted as a specific request or directive to Muhammad Zahid to solicit a bribe from Ikhwan.
The prosecution also argued that the Court of Appeal's findings of fact were inconsistent with the factual findings made by the High Court, which were based on evidence adduced through Muhammad Zahid and Ikhwan, both of whom were found to be credible witnesses.
According to the prosecution, Muhammad Zahid's testimony regarding the words spoken had a factual basis following a second meeting between Mohd Isa and Ikhwan, where Ikhwan had expressed gratitude for the approval of the purchase of the Merdeka Palace Hotel & Suites by Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FICSB).
It said Mohd Isa had also informed Muhammad Zahid that Ikhwan had told him that he (Ikhwan) could assist Parti Bumiputera Bersatu Sarawak.
The prosecution said the statement made constituted as a specific instruction from Mohd Isa to Muhammad Zahid to request and receive bribes on his behalf from Ikhwan.
On March 6, 2024, the Court of Appeal three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera (now Federal Court judge) and Datuk SM Komathy Suppiah, acquitted and discharged Mohd Isa after allowing his appeal.
It overturned the Feb 3, 2021, decision by the High Court, which found Mohd Isa guilty of nine corruption charges, allegedly committed on the 49th floor of Menara Felda, Platinum Park, No. 11 Persiaran KLCC, Kuala Lumpur between July 21, 2014, and Dec 11, 2015.
The prosecution filed its notice of appeal on March 7, 2024.
The former Negri Sembilan menteri besar was accused of dishonestly receiving gratification for himself, in cash totalling RM3,090,000 from Ikhwan, through Muhammad Zahid, as gratification for helping to approve the purchase of the hotel by FICSB for RM160 million.
The charges were framed under Section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, punishable under Section 24(1) of the same law, which provides a jail term of not exceeding 20 years and a fine of at least five times the bribe amount, or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction. – Bernama
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
High Court in Singapore orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton S$200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods
SINGAPORE: An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay S$200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at $159, compared with $560 to $945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth $2,100 from Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded $4.84 million in damages but claimed $2.9 million against Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at $100,000 each, the statutory cap. But Justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of $2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on July 2. He limited the maximum award to $900,000, or $100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding $200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. Justice Gill also addressed Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. Justice Gill criticised Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Neo Xuan Hao Edwin from Ravindran Associates. Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the $200,000. As at July 3, Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. - The Straits Times/ANN
Malaysiakini
a day ago
- Malaysiakini
Prosecution argues Court of Appeal wrong to acquit ex-Felda chair
The prosecution has listed 24 grounds in its petition of appeal on why the Court of Appeal erred in acquitting former Felda chairperson Isa Abdul Samad of nine corruption charges. In the petition filed at the Federal Court on June 26, the prosecution sought to reinstate the High Court's 2012 decision, which found Isa guilty and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and a fine of RM15.45 million, in default 18 years in prison. A check on the court's e-filing system showed that...
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Prosecution lists 24 grounds to appeal Isa Samad's acquittal
PUTRAJAYA: The prosecution has outlined 24 grounds in its appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to acquit former Felda chairman Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad of nine corruption charges. The petition, filed at the Federal Court on June 26, seeks to reinstate the High Court's 2021 verdict, which found Isa guilty and sentenced him to six years in prison and a RM15.45 million fine. The prosecution contends that the appellate court wrongly overturned the High Court's findings, which established that Isa had instructed his former aide, Muhammad Zahid Md Arip, to solicit bribes from Ikhwan Zaidel, a board member of Gegasan Abadi Properties Sdn Bhd. Evidence showed that after two meetings, Isa indirectly directed Zahid to accept bribes, which were later handed over in stages. The petition argues that the Court of Appeal misinterpreted key witness testimonies. It states, 'The Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when they disturbed the factual finding made by the High Court judge that Mohd Isa had instructed Muhammad Zahid to request and receive bribes from Ikhwan indirectly when the respondent uttered the words 'If they give anything later, you just take it' to Muhammad Zahid.' The prosecution maintains that Zahid understood the statement as an instruction to accept bribes on Isa's behalf. However, the appellate court ruled that the words did not explicitly constitute a directive for bribery. The case management is scheduled for this Monday. If the Federal Court sides with the prosecution, Isa could face reinstated charges related to allegedly receiving RM3.09 million in bribes linked to Felda's RM160 million hotel purchase.
