What specific legal interpretation led the Court of Appeal to rule the RM120,000 belonged to Syed Saddiq?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Court of Appeal ruled the RM120,000 belonged to Syed Saddiq by treating it as election-campaign funds effectively owned by him

The Court of Appeal said the trial judge’s factual finding that the RM120,000 was raised to finance Syed Saddiq’s election campaign meant, “for all intent and purposes, the money belongs to the accused.” It also found the prosecution did not establish that PW13’s evidence showed the RM120,000 belonged to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE) or Armada, and that PW13 held the RM120,000 “in trust for the accused and not for the donors” because it was “on transit” in the ABBE account.
The election-campaign purpose was treated as ownership for legal purposes
The Court of Appeal centred its reasoning on the trial judge’s finding that the RM120,000, described as proceeds from fundraising, was meant to finance Syed Saddiq’s election expenses. On that basis, the appellate court concluded that the funds were, “for all intent and purposes,” Syed Saddiq’s money rather than money belonging to others.
PW13’s testimony did not prove the money belonged to ABBE or Armada
The Court of Appeal said PW13 did not testify that the RM120,000 belonged to ABBE. Instead, PW13 testified that the ABBE account belonged to ABBE and that the RM120,000 was deposited into it, and the appellate court stated that there was “not an iota of evidence” showing the money belonged to ABBE or Armada.
The court characterized the ABBE account funds as held “in trust” for Syed Saddiq
Building on the finding that the fundraising was for Syed Saddiq’s political campaign, the Court of Appeal reasoned that PW13 held the RM120,000 “in trust for the accused and not for the donors.” The appellate court linked this to the fact that the RM120,000 was “on transit in the ABBE’s account,” so the donors’ contributions were treated as contributions to, and for, Syed Saddiq, with the money later deposited into the ABBE account.
Transfer into the personal account was treated as an error of legal framing
The Court of Appeal also said the trial judge erred in taking into consideration the facts of the transfer of money into Syed Saddiq’s personal account when determining the Section 403 charge. It further stated that even if Syed Saddiq’s belief of entitlement were wrong, a “wrong opinion” that he was justified in keeping the thing would not constitute the offence under Section 403.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What specific legal interpretation led the Court of Appeal to rule the RM120,000 belonged to Syed Saddiq?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends