How do the penalties under Section 233 compare to Section 249?

Question

Accepted Answer

Penalties Under Section 233 and Section 249 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Differ in Maximum Fines and Imprisonment Terms

The penalties prescribed under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 249 of the same Act present distinct maximum financial penalties and imprisonment durations. Section 233 addresses the creation and transmission of offensive communications, while Section 249 pertains to the failure to provide passwords to law enforcement.
Section 233 Penalties for Offensive Communications

Conviction under Section 233(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for creating and initiating the transmission of offensive communication carries a potential maximum fine of RM50,000, or a jail sentence of up to one year, or both penalties. Furthermore, an additional daily fine of RM1,000 may be imposed for each day the offence persists after the initial conviction. This section specifically targets the act of disseminating content deemed offensive with the intent to annoy another person.
Section 249 Penalties for Failure to Provide Passwords

In contrast, Section 249 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 outlines penalties for non-compliance with police requests for account access. Upon conviction for failing to provide a password to a police officer, the maximum penalty includes a fine of up to RM100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a combination of both. This section focuses on obstruction of investigations by withholding necessary access credentials.
Discrepancies in Maximum Imprisonment and Fines

A key distinction between the two sections lies in the severity of the potential custodial sentences and financial penalties. Section 249, concerning the failure to provide passwords, allows for a longer maximum imprisonment period of up to two years and a higher maximum fine of RM100,000. This contrasts with Section 233, which limits imprisonment to one year and the initial fine to RM50,000, although it includes a provision for daily fines if the offence continues.
Context of a Recent Acquittal

The differing penalties were brought into focus by a recent High Court decision that upheld the acquittal of blogger Jufazli Shi Ahmad. He had faced charges under both Section 233(1)(a) for posting offensive communications on YouTube and Section 249 for failing to provide the password to his account to the police. The court's decision affirmed the Sessions Court's earlier acquittal, highlighting the application of these legal provisions.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How do the penalties under Section 233 compare to Section 249?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends