KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has dispelled perceptions that only bribe recipients are punished, citing data which showed that 240 bribe givers had been charged since 2019.
Its senior deputy director of legal and prosecution division Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib said there must be sufficient evidence to enable both parties to be charged and convicted in court.
He stressed that those offering bribes were not immune to the law.
“But corruption prosecutions must be based on evidence,” he said in a statement.
He cited statistics which was presented at the Dewan Negara in September 2023 that 240 bribe givers had been charged under the MACC Act since 2019.
“Of that number, 86 were convicted,” he said.
More recent figures, he said, also showed that action against bribe givers was not uncommon.
“We recorded 1,689 arrests for giving bribes between 2015 and June 30 last year compared with 4,896 arrests for receiving bribes during the same period,” said Ahmad Akram.
He said members of the public made up the highest number of arrests for giving bribes, followed by those in the private sector, government-linked companies, civil servants and politicians.
Ahmad Akram said the MACC Act clearly criminalised both the giving and receiving of bribes.
“Offences involving soliciting or receiving gratification are provided for under Sections 16(a) and 17(a), while the act of offering or giving gratification is an offence under Sections 16(b) and 17(b),” he said.
He said the MACC listed the giving of gratification as one of the main corruption offences, punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of no less than five times the value of the bribe or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction.
Ahmad Akram said the scope of action against bribe givers had also been widened through the introduction of corporate liability under Section 17A of the MACC Act, which came into force on June 1, 2020.
“Under the provision, commercial organisations can be charged if a person associated with them gives, promises or offers gratification to obtain or retain business or business advantages,” he said.
Ahmad Akram pointed out that public perception was often shaped by media coverage that tended to focus more on recipients, especially civil servants or political office holders.
He explained that corruption was not a typical crime with clear victims, independent witnesses or easily obtainable documentary evidence.
“Bribery transactions often take place in secret, without third-party witnesses, without official records and sometimes through cash payments or intermediaries,” he said.
He said that both the giver and recipient were usually complicit and benefited from the transaction.
In such cases, Ahmad Akram said prosecutors had to assess whether there was enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
“If both the giver and recipient are charged at the same time without strong independent evidence, both have the right to defend themselves and remain silent in court,” he said.
And if they remain silent, he said the prosecution may lose its main witnesses, which could result in all offenders escaping conviction because the criminal standard of proof cannot be met.
