Why did the Court of Appeal find the trial judge erred in considering the transfer?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Court of Appeal Found the Trial Judge Erred in Considering the Transfer of RM120,000 Due to Misinterpretation of Ownership and Trust

The Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge had erred in his consideration of the RM120,000 transfer because the funds were intended for the accused's election campaign, thereby belonging to the accused. This conclusion was reached after examining the testimony of the assistant treasurer of Armada (PW13) and finding no evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the money belonged to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE) or Armada itself.
Funds Designated for Election Campaign Belong to the Accused

The appellate court's judgment, delivered by Judge Noorin Badaruddin, emphasised that once the trial judge established the RM120,000 as proceeds from fundraising meant to finance the accused's election campaign, the money, for all intents and purposes, belonged to the accused. This finding directly challenges the basis of the misappropriation charge, as the core of Section 403 of the Penal Code requires the property to belong to someone other than the accused.
Lack of Evidence of Ownership by ABBE or Armada

Further analysis of PW13's testimony revealed no assertion that the RM120,000 was the property of ABBE. While PW13 confirmed that the ABBE account was used to receive the deposit, he did not claim ownership of the funds. The Court of Appeal found a complete absence of evidence to demonstrate that the RM120,000 belonged to ABBE or Armada, despite the ABBE account being the conduit for the donation.
PW13 Held Funds in Trust for the Accused

Based on the trial judge's own finding that the money was for the accused's political campaign, the Court of Appeal concluded that PW13 held the RM120,000 in trust for the accused. The money was considered to be "on transit" in the ABBE account, with donors contributing specifically for the accused's campaign. Therefore, PW13 was accountable to the accused for these funds.
Trial Judge Erred in Considering the Transfer as Misappropriation

The Court of Appeal explicitly stated that the trial judge erred by considering the facts of the transfer into the accused's personal account. The appellate court reasoned that if the donations had been deposited directly into the accused's account, he would not have faced charges of dishonest misappropriation, as he was legally entitled to the money intended for his political campaign. The appellate court also noted that even a mistaken belief of entitlement does not constitute the offence under Section 403.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did the Court of Appeal find the trial judge erred in considering the transfer?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends