PUTRAJAYA: Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman's party told the Federal Court here on Friday (Dec 12) that the charge of misappropriating RM120,000 belonging to Armada cannot be maintained because the money belongs to the Muar Member of Parliament and there is no evidence that it belongs to any other party.
Lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, who represented Syed Saddiq, 33, as the respondent, said that the trial judge at the Kuala Lumpur High Court should have determined whether the money belonged to the respondent or not, reported Sinar Harian.
"If the answer is yes, then no embezzlement or dishonest withdrawal of money can occur."
"The Court of Appeal judge also made the right decision when he found that the money indeed belonged to the respondent," he said.
He said the Court of Appeal had based the facts on the testimony of the 13th prosecution witness (SP13), Rafiq Hakim Razali, who never stated that the money belonged to Armada, Bersatu, Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE) or himself.
Hisyam stated that he also admitted that the funds involved were collected through fundraising and belonged to the respondent for the respondent's personal election campaign.
In addition, the lawyer said, the same witness told Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers that the respondent first spent his own money and the collection was considered a refund.
Therefore, he said, the Court of Appeal took the right action when concluding that SP13 was merely a trustee for the RM120,000 in question.
"The trial judge should not have convicted the respondent under Section 403 of the Penal Code."
"The charges of breach of trust and misappropriation of party funds against the young man cannot be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove important elements in each charge."
"The previous Court of Appeal panel had thoroughly examined the facts and evidence before deciding that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case," he said.
For the first charge of breach of trust of RM1mil, he said the defence argued that Syed Saddiq never ordered SP11, former Armada Assistant Secretary Ahmad Redzuan Mohamed Shafi, 35, or SP13 to withdraw the funds from the Armada account.
Instead, the decision to release funds was made collectively by the top five party leaders (G5) during a meeting at the respondent's home for Covid-19 assistance and Ramadan and Aidilfitri welfare programs.
Hisyam said the evidence showed that SP13 was instructed to discuss the actual amount required for the program with the Armada Exco.
The Court of Appeal, he said, did not err when it found that the trial judge failed to consider several important aspects of the defence, including the conflicting evidence between SP11 and SP13 regarding the claim that the respondent ordered the withdrawal of RM1mil.
The prosecution, he said, also changed its stance on the element of “abuse” with three different narratives throughout the trial.
Hisyam said the Court of Appeal had assessed all the evidence and found that the respondent did not receive any financial benefit from the withdrawal of RM1mil, and there was no evidence that he intended to cause loss to Armada.
According to him, RM1mil was allocated to the party's welfare programmes, including Covid-19 pandemic assistance and Ramadan donations.
"The Court of Appeal's findings were also supported by the testimony of important prosecution witnesses, including SP9 Muhammad Daniel Kusari and SP13 himself, who admitted that the funds were used for party programs," he said.
Hisyam said the Court of Appeal also rejected the prosecution's reliance on SP13's statement that the respondent asked him to 'clear' the money.
He said the Court of Appeal appreciated the prosecution's arguments but did not agree that the term 'clear' meant malicious intent in the actual context.
"Based on the strong reasons presented, it is clear that the Court of Appeal did not make any appealable errors."
"Therefore, this prosecution appeal must be dismissed," he said, concluding his arguments with lawyers Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Kee Wei Lon, S Devanandan, Low Wei Loke, Lim Wei Jiet, Siti Summaiyah Ahmad Jaafar, Mohammed Khairuzzaman Mohammed Ridha, Ee Gen You and Nevyn Vinosh Venudran.
The prosecution as appellant was represented by Deputy Public Prosecutors, Datuk Wan Shaharudin Wan Ladin, Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib, Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan, Law Chin How, Nurul Qistini Qamarul Abrar, Muhammad Asraf Mohamed Tahir and Wan Nur Iman Wan Ahmad Afzal.
The proceedings took place before a panel of three judges chaired by the President of the Court of Appeal, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, who sat with two judges, Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.
