The Federal Court was told today that the Court of Appeal had rightly concluded that Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman had no dishonest intent and did not seek personal gain from the RM1 million withdrawn from Bersatu’s Armada funds.
Senior lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, representing the Muar MP, urged the apex court to reject the prosecution’s attempt to reinstate the seven-year jail sentence, RM10 million fine, and two strokes of the rotan previously imposed by the High Court.
On June 25, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling, finding that the lower court had failed to properly assess the evidence and the required legal elements to prove the charges.
Hisyam argued that the appellate court’s findings were sound and did not warrant interference, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on any of the charges.
He said the Court of Appeal had examined key aspects of the prosecution’s evidence that ultimately undermined claims of dishonesty or wrongful intent.
Firstly, the court found that Syed Saddiq did not obtain any financial benefit from the withdrawal. Secondly, the funds were channelled to legitimate Armada programmes, including Covid-19 relief, Hari Raya and Ramadan initiatives, and welfare assistance—facts supported by the prosecution’s own witness.
Thirdly, Hisyam said there was no credible proof that Syed Saddiq had instructed former Armada assistant treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali to “clear” the funds, noting that the Court of Appeal had rejected the prosecution’s interpretation of the word as sinister.
He added that the defence had always maintained that the prosecution failed to disclose a prima facie case, as the alleged instruction to withdraw money did not fulfil the actus reus for criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Penal Code.
The RM120,000 allegedly misused was also not proven to belong to anyone other than the respondent, he said, which is a key requirement under Section 403.
Hisyam further argued that the second charge for misuse of property was defective as it did not constitute an offence in law, and since the third and fourth charges for money laundering were dependent on the second charge, they must also fall.
The hearing continues.
