MUAR MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman has been freed of charges involving criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property, and money laundering connected to the youth wing of his former party, Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda (Armada).
A three-judge Court of Appeal panel led by Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim allowed the former youth and sports minister's appeal, setting aside his conviction, seven-year prison sentence, RM10 million fine, and two strokes of the rotan.
On 9 November 2023, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found Syed Saddiq guilty on four charges and sentenced him to seven years in prison, two strokes of the cane, and a RM10 million fine. The charges were related to the alleged misappropriation of funds from Armada during his tenure as its leader.
Syed Saddiq, 32, was allegedly found to have abetted Armada’s former assistant treasurer, Rafiq Hakim Razali, in committing criminal breach of trust involving RM1 million. The offence was allegedly committed at CIMB Bank Berhad, Menara CIMB KL Sentral, on 6 March 2020, under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
He also faced a second charge of misappropriating RM120,000 from Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise’s Maybank Islamic account, allegedly by instructing Rafiq Hakim to dispose of the funds. This incident reportedly occurred between 8 and 21 April 2018 in Pandan Jaya and falls under Section 403 of the Penal Code.
In addition, the former youth and sports minister was charged with two counts of money laundering, involving the transfer of RM50,000 on two occasions from his Maybank Islamic account to his Amanah Saham Bumiputera account. The transfers were said to be proceeds from unlawful activity and took place on 16 and 19 June 2018 in Taman Perling, Johor Bahru.
These charges fall under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which provides for a maximum 15-year prison term and a fine of up to five times the value of the illegal proceeds upon conviction.
Other members of the bench today were Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Noorin Badaruddin.
Delivering her judgment before a packed courtroom, Noorin said the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the predicate charges for abetting in criminal breach of trust (CBT) and dishonest misappropriation.
She said the trial judge did not take into account the procedures and contradictory evidence, and also took into account evidence given by witnesses under duress from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
She said the instructions to withdraw the money at the time were based on valid concerns, and his conduct was reasonable as he was legally entitled to the monies.
"The act of telling, instructing, or ordering someone to withdraw money cannot be considered as disposal of the money.
The act of withdrawing the money itself does not satisfy the element of actus reus (the physical act of a crime)," she said.
Noorin added that the trial judge failed to appreciate Syed Saddiq’s defence and had treated it as a bare denial and afterthought.
Lawyer: No Prima Facie Case
Meanwhile, Syed Saddiq’s legal counsel, Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, expressed his appreciation to the court for accepting the defence’s submissions.
“We have just heard the judgment of the Honourable Justice Datuk Noorin. We are thankful and grateful to the panel of judges for accepting our submissions,” he told reporters during a press conference at the Palace of Justice.
“Firstly, there was no prima facie case against our client. Secondly, the learned High Court judge had previously failed to appreciate the defence presented by the Honourable Member, but the Court of Appeal has now accepted and appreciated our arguments,” he added.
Datuk Hisyam also noted that the ruling demonstrated a lack of dishonest intent in the allegations made against his client.
“For the first charge, the court found no evidence suggesting our client had dishonest intent with regard to RM1 million, which was used for political party programmes. In fact, not a single sen went into our client’s pocket.
“As for the second charge, it was shown that the money in question belonged to our client, not to anyone else. Therefore, there was no element of criminal misappropriation. Since the second charge failed, the abetment charge could not be sustained,” he explained. - June 25, 2025
