Out of that RM 1 million withdrawn, less than RM 500,000.00 was spent. This was for Armada’s programs. Spending less than RM 500,000.00 was allowed as Bersatu Supreme Council’s approval was never required. [10] I am of the view that the COA was not wrong in giving the two reasons above. This is because the act of withdrawing the money alone is not an act that is prohibited by that Art. 24.8 of the Bersatu Constitution. What is prohibited by that provision is using the money for expenses and not merely withdrawing the same. [11] Further, as there is evidence that the money used is less than RM 500,000.00, there is no need for an approval from Bersatu Supreme Council’s. [12] According to the COA, since PW13 did not commit the offence of CBT, the Respondent could not be abetting PW13. [13] Further, looking at the 1st charge, it says the Respondent abetted PW13 and it reads: …telah bersubahat dengan Rafiq Hakim bin Razali yang merupakan Penolong Bendahari Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (ARMADA Malaysia) dan di dalam kapasiti tersebut, Rafiq Hakim bin Razali telah diamanahkan dengan penguasaan ke atas dana ARMADA Malaysia berjumlah RM1,000,000.00 telah melakukan pecah amanah jenayah dengan secara tidak jujur menyalahgunakan dana tersebut iaitu satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 406 Kanun Keseksaan, dan kamu telah bersubahat melakukan kesalahan tersebut di mana kesalahan tersebut telah dilakukan hasil persubahatan kamu… [14] Following the above, the relevant question to ask is what did the Respondent do to abet PW13? What was the act done to “secara tidak jujur menyalahgunakan dana tersebut” (“dishonestly misused the money”). How is that so? To me that is unclear from the charge. Nothing in the charge indicates how that money is dishonestly misused and more importantly how the Respondent had abetted that dishonest act. [15] It is trite and fundamental in criminal law that a charge must be clear so that an accused person would know exactly what is being accused against him. There is absolutely no necessity to explain this further as this is a basic legal principle. With respect, I do not think sufficient information is reflected in the charge for the Respondent to answer it. The charge to my mind simply says an offence is committed and the Respondent abetted the same. Or to simplify it, the same is akin as accusing your friend of being a thief and you had abetted him. That is unclear for you to answer the accusation and that certainly would be unfair to you. This reason alone should be more than enough not to convict the Respondent on the 1st charge. [16] Further, based on a few decisions of the Federal Court in previous cases, the COA found that abetment can only happen if the abettor was aware of the facts sufficiently to enable him to know that the act was unlawful and the same substantially assist, actively suggest or stimulated the principal offender in the commission of the offence. There must also be common purpose or intent to aid or encourage the person who commits the principal crime and either an actual aiding or encouraging or a readiness to aid or encouraging will be required. [17] I agree there must be some form of participation, although not necessarily substantial on the part of the alleged abettor instead of being extremely passive. [18] Further, what the COA found as indicated earlier could also relate to the need for the charge itself to be clear. [19] The COA also said there are five limbs of actus-reus or physical element that constitute the offence of CBT under s. 405 of the Penal Code (“PC”). They are: i. Misappropriation; ii. Conversion to own use; iii. Use or disposal in violation of a direction of law; or iv. Use or disposal in violation of a legal contract; or v. “suffering” another person to do any of (i) to (iv). [20] The COA states the withdrawing of the money is not what is stated under that provision of PC. Therefore, when PW13 withdrew the money from the relevant account, that could not amount to CBT. Since that is not CBT, the Respondent could not be convicted for abetting PW13. [21] I could not say that the COA is utterly wrong in its reasoning in finding that the Respondent had not abetted PW13 by the way it arrived at its observation and understanding. Justifying its conclusion by analyzing what constitute CBT by referring to the written law could not be something completely incorrect by the COA to find. [22] Therefore, I agree the 1st charge is not proven against the Respondent based on all the above reasons. THE 2nd CHARGE [23] This charge relates to dishonest misappropriation of property against the Respondent under section 403 of the PC. This provision states as follows: Dishonest misappropriation of property Whoever dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use, or causes any other person to dispose of, any property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and not more than five years and with whipping and shall also be liable to fine. [24] In respect of this offence, there is no doubt of the material words used in the 2nd charge (see this charge as narrated earlier) against the Respondent. The material words are: … telah dengan secara tidak jujur menyalahgunakan harta untuk diri sendiri… [Emphasis Added] [25] The above words “untuk diri sendiri” obviously could not be separated from the rest of the words “telah dengan secara tidak jujur menyalahgunakan harta”. All these words must be read together. Thus, the words “telah dengan secara tidak jujur menyalahgunakan harta untuk diri sendiri” in the context of the 2nd charge mean “dishonestly misappropriated the money for his own use”. [26] The amount of money involved as in the charge is RM 120,000.00. It relates to that amount in the Maybank account of Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (“ABBE”), a company which was owned by PW13 at the material time. This amount was transferred to the Respondent’s own Maybank account by PW13 on the instruction of the Respondent. [27] The evidence found by the COA is that this amount was obtained because of two fund raising activities for the Respondent’s election campaign. The election campaign is for the 14th General Election where the Respondent stood as the candidate for Muar. The campaign period was from 28.4.2018 to 9.5.2018 (as noted by the COA in para 92 GOJ COA). Essentially, the COA found that this amount is the Respondent’s own money (para 90 of the grounds of judgement of the COA (“GOJ COA”) states this). The COA found that the Respondent was therefore entitled to use this money. (paras 92 and 94 of the GOJ COA express this). Hence, the Respondent could not misappropriate that money. As such, the COA found this 2nd charge is not proven against the Respondent. [28] Thus, is the COA right in saying this amount of money belongs to the Respondent? This is crucial because once it is shown this is not the case, then the whole basis for the COA’s decision to allow the Respondent’s appeal could not stand at least for this charge. I respectfully differ and would say the money does not belong to the Respondent. [29] First, the money was deposited and then withdrawn from ABBE’s account, as stated earlier, a company owned by PW13 at the material time. This amount was later transferred to the Respondent’s own Maybank account by PW13 on the instruction of the Respondent. If the money truly belongs to the Respondent, why must it be deposited initially in ABBE’s account and only later transferred to the Respondent own account at Maybank, on instruction by Respondent to PW13. In fact, on this point, the COA said as follows: [94] We are of the considered view that if only the donations were deposited directly into the Appellant’s account, the Appellant would not have to face this drawback of being charged for dishonest misappropriation of money which he is entitled to. [Emphasis Added] [30] I am of the view that the above entire statement by the COA is true and spot on except the words “…which he is entitled to”. Those words with respect are not correct as the donations must be used for one specific purpose i.e. the Respondent’s election campaign. But the evidence is lacking at the trial to show that the money (donation) was indeed used for that purpose as will be shown in a short while. Hence, the Respondent could not be entitled to the money. [31] The Respondent believes the money is his. However, If the money truly belongs to the Respondent, at the risk of repetition, why can’t the money be deposited directly into the Respondent’s own account at Maybank? The element of dishonesty is also presence on the part of the Respondent in misappropriating this amount as it went into the Respondent’s personal account at Maybank, as stated, on his instruction to PW13. [32] Second, from the Respondent’s personal account at Maybank, the money later was deposited in the Respondent’s investment account in Amanah Saham Bumiputra (“ASB”). Thus, if the money truly belongs to the Respondent, it should be acceptable if one asks, why a need for this elaborate trail? From ABBE’s account to Respondent’s Maybank account and then to Respondent’s ASB account. Why can’t the money go direct to Respondent’s Maybank account or ASB account? After all, he has two own accounts to choose from. [33] Third, the money is for the Respondent’s election campaign (this is a finding of fact by the HC and acknowledged by the COA). But before the election campaign started and a few days after the money was collected through the fund-raising activities, the Respondent instructed PW13 to transfer this money to the Respondent own Maybank account from the ABBE’s account (para 89 of the COA GOJ acknowledging this finding of fact of the HC). Since that was the purpose of the money, was this purpose achieved? It is important to note that the campaign period as stated earlier was from 28.4.2018 to 9.5.2018. However, only a few days before the beginning of this period, i.e. between 8.4.2018 to 21.4.2018, (the COA noted these dates at para 81 GOJ COA) the money was transferred to the Respondent’s personal accounts in Maybank. [34] The money is from the donors through the fund-raising activities. The money is the donors’ money and not the Respondent’s money. It is meant for the Respondent’s election campaign. It is not for the Respondent to use it as he pleases. The money did not achieve its purpose as before the election campaign started and a few days after the money was collected through the donors, the Respondent instructed PW13 to transfer this money to the Respondent own Maybank account from the ABBE’s account (again, para 89 of the COA GOJ acknowledging the finding of this fact by the HC). The money misappropriated was used for the Respondent’s own purpose as it went into the Respondent’s personal accounts at Maybank and then ASB. [35] Dishonest misappropriation is also proven as the donors were never told by the Respondent that he would take the money and put it in his personal accounts as reimbursement for the money he had allegedly spent. [36] According to the COA, the most important ingredient for this charge was not proven i.e. the money belongs to someone else and not the Respondent (para 113 GOJ COA). With respect to the COA, I am of the view the money indeed belongs to someone else. The money belongs to the donors for the Respondent’s election campaign. It is not the money of the Respondent as it is to be used only for the election campaign and not anything else. The money is the Respondent’s money only if it is used for its purpose. [37] A little illustration to demonstrate the point seems appropriate at this stage. One may give another some money and the latter may think that because it was given by the former, that money belongs to him or her. But the money was given for a specific purpose e.g. for the purchase of a car. The money is rightly the money of the latter but only if it is spent for that specific purpose. [38] In the context of our present case, the money could not exist without the donors. In fact, the COA said the money came from the donors (para 92 GOJ COA). However, it should not be lost that the donors gave the money for a specific reason i.e. for the Respondent’s election campaign. But the money never achieved its purpose for the reasons given earlier. [39] The HC made a finding of fact that that the money is for the Respondent’s election campaign and not anything else. Not even “political campaign”, the term used by the COA interchangeably with the words “election campaign” even if one wants to consider these words as carrying different meanings. The purpose of the money is still for the Respondent’s election campaign to the HC and this can be gleaned by the findings of the HC as follows: [45] Bagi pertuduhan kedua, ketiga dan keempat, OKT menegaskan bahawa wang kutipan hasil majlis makan malam yang diadakan adalah untuk menggantikan perbelanjaan yang telah dikeluarkan dari wang beliau sendiri yang telah digunakan olehnya bagi menampung kos kempen pilihanraya beliau sendiri. [46] Untuk menyokong dakwaan ini, OKT telah mengemukakan D85, D86, D87, D88 dan D89 iaitu poster majlis makan malam, hantaran di Facebook dan ciapan di Twitter. [47] DW2 dan DW4 juga dalam keterangan mereka menyatakan bahawa segala program meraih dana tersebut adalah bagi tujuan kempen OKT sebagai calon dalam PRU14. [Emphasis Added] [40] In his defence, the Respondent said he considered that money of RM 120,000.00 as reimbursement for him as he had used RM 170,000.00 of his own money for his election campaign. He chose this narrative as his defence. Thus, the Respondent is not disputing the money comes from the donors or the money belong to the donors. He only said that he has a right to the money and had taken the money to reimburse himself. [41] Hence, the question to ask is can anyone use any amount given by someone else for a specific purpose, by saying he (the former) had used his own money earlier and therefore he is entitled to take the money given as reimbursement to himself. In the context of the present case, can the Respondent take the money given to him by the donors as reimbursement for himself as he had used the money for his election campaign much earlier than the donors giving the money to him. With respect, I do not think this defence could be sustained and did not raise a reasonable doubt on the Appellant’s case. This is because the Respondent could not use the money given by the donors to reimburse himself as the donors did not give him the money for that purpose. The donors gave him the money for a future event i.e. for his upcoming election campaign. Not for him to reimburse himself for the money he said he had spent earlier. [42] Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that the fund-raising activities were held to reimburse the Respondent for any expenses incurred towards his election prior to that fund-raising activities. In this regard, there is no reason to dispute the finding of the HC that the donors gave their money in the fund-raising dinners held on 7 and 8 April 2018. But the money was transferred to the Respondent’s account at Maybank immediately and almost immediately on 8,9,11 and 12 April 2018. [43] Further, not a single donor was told that the Respondent will use any donation to reimburse the latter for his expenses allegedly incurred much earlier than the donors making the donations, which is prior to the beginning of the election campaign. [44] It must also be emphasised the trite law is that when a finding of fact is made by the trial court, in this case the HC, this finding of fact should rarely be disturbed. The same principle is explained in the case of PP v Abdul Rahman Mohamad [2005] 1 CLJ 700 as follows: … the appellate court must be slow to disturb the factual findings of the trial judge unless it was convinced that his decision was plainly wrong or was against the weight of the evidence. The functions of an appellate court in an appeal from the decision of a trial judge, which decision was based on his opinion respecting the credibility and trustworthiness of the witnesses he saw are limited in their scope and character. In order to reverse, the appellate court should not merely entertain doubts as to whether the decision below is right, but must be convinced that it is wrong. [45] The finding of fact by the HC which is relevant and not wrong are stated as follows: [33] Walau bagaimanapun, tindakan OKT mengarahkan PW13 untuk mengeluarkan dan memindahkan wang tersebut (RM120,000.00) ke dalam akaun peribadi milik OKT hanya beberapa hari selepas kutipan dibuat dan sebelum kempen pilihanraya bermula adalah suatu tindakan yang termasuk di bawah kesalahan seksyen 403 KK, iaitu OKT telah menyalahgunakan harta untuk kegunaan sendiri. [34] Dilihat dari keseluruhan keterangan dan keadaan sewaktu itu, tiada alasan bagi OKT untuk memindahkan wang tersebut keluar dari akaun Maybank ABBE, kecuali untuk membiayai kempen pilihanraya beliau. Pembiayaan ataupun sebarang bayaran boleh dibuat terus melalui akaun Maybank ABBE ini, tanpa perlu ianya dipindahkan ke dalam akaun peribadi milik OKT. [35] Tindakan ini, pada hemat Mahkamah ini jelas menunjukkan niat OKT untuk menyalahgunakan wang tersebut untuk kegunaannya sendiri. [46] Further, the defence of the Respondent that he could use the amount RM 120,000.00 as reimbursement for himself is disputed by PW13, the person operating the ABBE’s account at the material time as owner of ABBE. As indicated earlier, from this account the money was transferred to the Respondent’s Maybank account. PW13 testified he was not shown any receipts regarding any expenses of the Respondent, justifying the latter claim for reimbursement. In instructing PW13 to put or transfer the money into his own account at Maybank, the Respondent had dishonestly misappropriated that money for his own use, an offence under section 403 of the PC. [47] The other reason this could not raise a reasonable doubt on the Appellant’s case is because the Respondent had not shown sufficient documentary evidence to support his contention that he had spent RM 170,000.00 of his own money for his election campaign. I had examined the documents shown by the Respondent at the HC, marked as exhibits D85, D86, D87, D88 and D89. All these documents do not show that specific amount of RM 170,000.00 being spent for his election campaign. [48] Turning to the point of submission of the Respondent, I am also of the view with respect, it is immaterial to the point of being trivial to say that misappropriation under section 403 of the PC could not mean for one’s own use. I had asked myself what is the prejudice even when the charge states misappropriation for the Respondent’s own use? In this regard what prejudice is there to say and find someone has misappropriated some money for his or her own use if there is evidence to that effect? The facts in the present case showed the money went from an account not belonging to the Respondent to the Respondent’s own account without justifiable reasons. That is to my mind sufficient to constitute misappropriation for the Respondent’s own use. It could not be the case the Respondent must be acquitted of this charge simply because the charge had used the term “misappropriation for own use”. [49] In fact, on this point, I would quote what is stated in Part 1 of the written submission of the Respondent himself dated 26 November 2025 that states as follows: [52] In Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s law of Crimes, 28th Edition Vol.3 at page 2923, the learned author stated that “misappropriation” means “improperly setting apart for one’s own use to the exclusion of the owner”. [Emphasis Added] [50] I noted and read lengthy written submissions not only by the Respondent but also by the Appellant to the effect whether “misappropriation” can essentially be coupled with the words “for own use”. I see this with respect, as unnecessary by both sides for missing the basic point, what is so wrong to say “misappropriation for own use”? As a consequence, in this particular instance and for this particular charge, I do not think the Respondent had been misled by the same. [51] Therefore, I am of the view there is no real, concrete and substantive issue as contended of this charge being defective for conflating the words “misappropriation” and ‘for own use” as submitted by the Respondent. [52] Based on all the reasons explained, therefore, I am of the opinion the 2nd charge is proven against the Respondent. THE 3RD CHARGE [53] This charge is for the offence of money laundering for the amount stated in the charge which is deposited in the Respondent’s Maybank account and transferred to his ASB account. It is also relevant to refer to the whole charge as mentioned earlier. [54] The COA said this charge is not proven because the 2nd charge is not proven (para 114 GOJ COA). Essentially according to the COA because the predicate offence under the 2nd charge is not proven, this 3rd charge could not also be proven. [55] First, the Respondent do not deny that RM 50,000.00 was transferred from his Maybank account to his ASB account. That Maybank account had received RM 120,000.00 from the ABBE’s account relating to the 2nd charge. [56] The only Respondent’s defence is that the RM 50,000.00 belongs to him. Hence, since the money belongs to him, he asserted that he could not be involved in any money laundering. [57] I have already explained as seen in the determination on the 2nd charge above, that money of RM 120,000 does not belong to the Respondent but to the donors. Likewise, that RM 50,000.00 could not belong to the Respondent but the donors. At the risk of repetition, it is also never denied by the Respondent that the money RM 50,000.00 was deposited into his ASB account from his Maybank Account. [58] In the first place, as explained earlier regarding the 2nd charge, there is no justification for the amount RM 120,000.00 that went into the Respondent’s Maybank account. Likewise, there could not be any justification for part of the money i.e.RM 50,000.00 from that amount RM 120,000.00 to be transferred from the Respondent’s Maybank account into his ASB’s account. That amount of RM 50,000.00 is still not the Respondent’s money. [59] The Respondent dealt with that money when he deposited the same in his ASB account. The money is from unlawful activity as it came from the donors for his election campaign. But this purpose for the election campaign was not achieved as explained earlier. That is why the money is from unlawful activity. Unlawful because the money coming from the donors did not attain its purpose as the Respondent’s activity or action in taking it instead had caused the aim of the money to fail. [60] Further, s.3 of the of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613) states: "unlawful activity" means: