PP v. MOHD ISA ABDUL SAMAD
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NORDIN HASSAN FCJ 
LEE SWEE SENG FCJ 
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(LB)-32-03-2024(W)]
10 FEBRUARY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (3)

Abstract – (i) The prosecution satisfies its evidentiary burden to trigger the statutory presumption under s. 50(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 upon proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the factum of receipt of the gratification. Once the physical receipt of the gratification is established, whether directly or through an intermediary, the law presumes that such gratification was received corruptly as an inducement or reward for the matters stipulated in the charge; (ii) Where gratification is received through a third-party intermediary, circumstantial evidence may be relied on to establish the factum of receipt by the principal, ie, bank withdrawal records, the proximity of the parties and the timing of the delivery.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Appeal by prosecution – Appeal against acquittal and discharge – Public body officer received RM3.09 million in bribes as reward – Bribes delivered in cash through intermediary – Public body officer convicted on nine bribery charges under s. 16(a)(A) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and sentenced to six years' imprisonment for each charge and fine of RM15,450,000 – Court of Appeal overturned High Court's conviction and acquitted and discharged public body officer – Whether conviction and sentence safe

CRIMINAL LAW: Offence – Corruption – Receiving gratification – Public body officer received RM3.09 million in bribes as reward – Bribes delivered in cash through intermediary – Whether elements of offence established – Whether factum of receipt through intermediary proven – Whether gratification received as reward – Whether gratification received corruptly – Whether proof of receipt of money sufficient to trigger statutory presumption – Whether mere denial or claim of non-receipt sufficient to discharge burden on balance of probabilities – Whether defence's version reasonable or probable – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss. 16(a)(A) & 50(1)

EVIDENCE: Witness – Credibility – Public body officer received RM3.09 million in bribes as reward – Bribes delivered in cash through intermediary – Use of code word as solicitation of bribe – Intermediary unable to recall exact number of times code word used – Whether there was material discrepancy in testimony – Whether discrepancy fatal to prosecution's case – Whether intermediary's testimony corroborated by other witnesses and circumstantial evidence – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, ss. 16(a)(A) & 50(1)