PP v. SYED SADDIQ SYED ABDUL RAHMAN
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ABU BAKAR JAIS PCA 
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI FCJ 
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 05(LB)-102-06-2025(W), 05(LB)-103-06-2025(W) & 05(LB)-104-06-2025(W)]
13 JULY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (13)

Abstract – (i) A procedural bank withdrawal cannot be equated to an 'expenditure'. Expanding the constitutional/contractual definition of 'expenses', to include a mere 'withdrawal', rewrites the language of the governing instrument without legal basis. Consequently, a failure to obtain prior approval for a bank withdrawal does not, by itself, satisfy the elements or constitute an act of criminal breach of trust; (ii) An accused cannot be convicted of abetment, under s. 109 of the Penal Code ('PC'), if the act of the alleged principal offender is not proven to be criminally wrong or unlawful in the first place. Where the prosecution fails to establish that the primary actor committed the underlying offence, the charge of abetment against the secondary actor must fail; (iii) Funds donated or raised specifically for a designated candidate's political campaign transfer beneficial ownership to that candidate upon collection. Because the candidate is the beneficial owner of those funds, transferring or utilising them for that campaign does not constitute dishonest misappropriation of third-party property, even if held or transited through an intermediary's account; (iv) Where the predicate offence under s. 403 of the PC fails due to a lack of proof of unlawful origin or criminal property, the consequential money laundering charges under s. 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 cannot stand, as the funds transferred do not constitute 'proceeds of unlawful activities'.

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences – Abetment – Criminal breach of trust – Withdrawal of funds from political party's account without prior approval of Supreme Council – Whether 'withdrawal' can be equated with 'expenses' under political party's constitution – Whether failure to obtain prior approval for withdrawal constituted criminal breach of trust – Whether conviction for abetment could stand when principal offender's act not proven to be criminally wrong – Penal Code, ss. 109 & 406

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences – Dishonest misappropriation of property – Political campaign funds raised for candidate deposited into transit account – Transfer of funds from transit account into candidate's personal account – Whether ownership and beneficial ownership proven – Whether actus reus established – Whether money belonged to transit account owner or candidate – Whether candidate misappropriated funds belonging to another – Penal Code, s. 403

CRIMINAL LAW: Offences – Money laundering – Transfer of funds from personal bank account into unit trust account – Alleged proceeds of unlawful activity stemming from predicate offence under s. 403 of Penal Code – Predicate offence failed for lack of proof – Whether money laundering charges proven – Whether funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activities – Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s. 4(1)(b)

WORDS & PHRASES: 'Expenses' – Article in political party's constitution – Whether there is difference between making procedural bank withdrawal and incurring expenditure – Whether 'expenses' synonymous with or inclusive of 'withdrawal' – Whether 'expenses' could be expanded to cover 'withdrawal'