ASNIDA BINTI ABDUL DAIM v Pendakwa Raya (WA-43-31-05/2026)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: WA-43-31-05/2026 ANTARA ASNIDA BINTI ABDUL DAIM (NO. K/P: 610416106588) …PEMOHON DAN PENDAKWA RAYA …RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. Introduction [1] The applicant, charged with an offence under section 36(2) of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) for failing to comply with a notice under section 36(1)(b) dated 8.11.2023. The notice requires the applicant to be present for purposes of statement taking pertaining to some properties which the applicant was alleged to have omitted to declare. [2] The applicant was offered bail. The conditions of the applicant’s release on bail ordered by the learned Session Court Judge were as follows: a. bail set at RM50,000.00 with one surety; b. the applicant’s passport be handed to the Session Court pending disposal of the trial. [3] The applicant via her counsel had sought for a revision of the order by the Session Court, directing for her passport to be handed in to Court for safekeeping until the determination of her case WA-62R-18-04/2026. The basic reason in impounding the passport was because the prosecution had contended that the applicant a flight risk. Arising from this decision, a revision was presented via a letter dated 20.5.22026. This Court upon hearing submissions from both parties, had allowed the applicant’s passport to be returned. Hence, this appeal. B. Facts [4] The charge against the applicant reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 13 Disember 2023, di Ibu Pejabat Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia, No. 2, Lebuh Wawasan, Presint 7, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya telah dengan sengaja memberikan satu pernyataan bertulis dengan bersumpah yang tidak mematuhi terma notis di bawah seksyen 36(1)(b) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 [Akta 694] bertarikh 8 November 2023 yang telah dihantar kepada kamu oleh seorang pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia berpangkat Pesuruhjaya dan yang lebih tinggi pada 14 November 2023, iaitu dengan tidak mengisytiharkan harta-harta seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam Lampiran A, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 36(2) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 [Akta 694].” [5] The revision letter by the applicant referred to a decision of the Court of Appeal in “No. Rayuan: W-05-141-03/2024 Naimah Abdul Khalid v Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia” which the Court of Appeal had allowed the return of the passport back to the applicant, after having ruled that the order to impound the passport was made not based on any supporting evidence or explanation to justify the additional condition but by merely relying on prosecution’s submission it being “common practice of imposing additional conditions”. [6] This Court also had sight of the minutes of the proceedings before the Session Court Judge where it was the submission by the prosecution that the applicant a flight risk for being absence, acting contrary to the said notice issued by SPRM. Section 36 mandated the applicant’s presence as being mandatory. This is what section 36 states: Section 36. Powers to obtain information.

Subsection

(1) Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above, if he has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act, may by written notice—

Subsection

(2) Every person to whom a notice is sent by the officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above under subsection (1) shall, notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, comply with the terms of the notice within such time as may be specified therein, and any person who willfully neglects or fails to comply with the terms of the notice commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit. [7] The prosecution suggested this being a strict liability offence that makes strict compliance with the said notice a must, thus the presence of the applicant obligated without any excuse. The submission by the prosecution before the trial Court was that the applicant frequented visits, abroad and there was failure to be present twice, contrary to the said notice. Since the applicant had twice failed to attend, turned her into a flight risk and risk of absconding. [8] This stand taken by the prosecution suggesting that the applicant had twice failed to comply with the said notice without any intervention coming from the Respondent was objected by counsel for the applicant. The objection sought to explain, based on the minutes before the trial Court, the applicant’s effort in getting in touch with the Respondent. In short, the applicant did not remain quiet and the Respondent was notified and agreed with the extension of time to appear. [9] This Court was careful in allowing the submissions by both the DPP and the applicant as this Court is aware that the merits should be safe for the trial of the charge. Yet, it is relevant as the applicant’s absence acting against the said notice, had been the basis submitted by the Respondent DPP to prove and to satisfy the element of “flight risk” and “absconding”. [10] This Court acting on the dicta by the Court of Appeal in Naimah Abdul Khalid v Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (supra) that the impounding of the passport must be based on “some evidence or explanation” and in this present case before this Court of the element of “flight risk”, sought some further clarifications from the Respondent as to whether the said notices were presented before the trial Court and remarks or notes made to show the applicant’s absence. This, in lieu, the DPP having submitted earlier before the trial Judge that this being a strict liability offence. The Deputy Public Prosecutor who appeared before this Court had candidly said ‘no’. [11] Armed with this scenario, moved this Court to rule that the stand taken by the prosecution that the applicant is a flight risk is not supported by any evidence or explanation. This Court is of the view that to take the stand the applicant a flight risk in a way, is stating in a short cut way that the applicant had failed to comply with the said notice even before the trial begins. This creates a real danger of prejudice on the part of the applicant. [12] Furthermore, this Court observed that the applicant had submitted herself within the jurisdiction of the Court in Malaysia to answer the said charge proffered against her. There was nothing nor any explanation coming from the prosecution to suggest otherwise, to the effect that the cooperation of the international police (Interpol) had to be sought before she was brought back to Malaysia. [13] The decision in PP v. Haris Fadzilah Abu Bakar & Anor and Other Appeals [2026] 6 CLJ 72 (COA) is relevant, albeit a case on point of bail in a section 56A Courts of Judicature Act matter, it serves to guide this Court in its analysis and evaluation of the entire facts in the proceedings that relate to, focusing only on point of ‘flight risk’, before coming to the above decision by this Court, that there was none. [14] For these reasons, the revision was allowed and the passport was ordered to be returned to the applicant, this Court having been satisfied that there was no evidence presented. Dated 29th June 2026 -Sgnd- (NURULHUDA NUR’AINI BTE MOHAMAD NOR) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR For the applicant: