Case Breakdown · Malaysia
Syed Saddiq walks free. For good.
Six years, four charges, three courts — and a Federal Court that split 2–1 on the money trail while agreeing unanimously on the RM1 million.
Still good lawOn 13 July 2026 the Federal Court dismissed the prosecution's final appeal against Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman. There is nowhere left to appeal. The acquittal is final.
The reporting focused on the outcome. The judgments are more interesting than that — because the three judges did not divide the way most people assumed, and the reasons the case failed had less to do with what the evidence showed than with what the prosecution chose not to put before the court.
The four charges
Syed Saddiq was Head of Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda (“Armada”), the youth wing of Bersatu. He faced four charges arising from two entirely separate sums of money.
- Charge 1 — Abetment of CBT
- s 406 read with s 109 Penal Code. Abetting Rafiq Hakim Razali (PW13), Armada's assistant treasurer, in criminal breach of trust over RM1,000,000 withdrawn from Armada's CIMB account on 6 March 2020.
- Charge 2 — Misappropriation
- s 403 Penal Code. Dishonestly misappropriating RM120,000 from the Maybank Islamic account of Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE) between 8 and 21 April 2018.
- Charges 3 & 4 — Money laundering
- s 4(1)(b) AMLATFPUAA 2001. Two transfers of RM50,000 each, on 16 and 19 June 2018, from his personal Maybank account into his ASB account.
| Court | When | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| High Court | 2023 | Convicted on all four charges. |
| Court of Appeal | 25 June 2025 | Unanimously allowed the appeals; convictions and sentences set aside. |
| Federal Court | 13 July 2026 | Prosecution's appeals dismissed; the Court of Appeal affirmed. |
The RM1 million: a word, and what it meant
The first charge turned on a single Malay word in Bersatu's own constitution.
Article 24.8 requires Supreme Council approval for perbelanjaan exceeding RM500,000 at any one time. The High Court had read perbelanjaan (expenditure) as covering pengeluaran (withdrawal). Sequerah FCJ was unpersuaded, holding there was no ambiguity requiring “any form of mental gymnastics” — the word means expenses, not withdrawal [42]–[43].
On the evidence, the money actually spent came to less than RM500,000, so no approval was needed [47]. It had gone to Armada programmes — Covid-19 relief and Ramadan welfare — and there was never any evidence that Syed Saddiq personally benefited from the RM1 million or that any of it reached his accounts [62]–[64]. With the principal offence gone, the abetment charge fell with it “as night the day” [66].
The RM120,000: the witnesses nobody called
The second charge required the prosecution to prove the money belonged to someone other than the accused — that is the actus reus of s 403 [89], [107].
The Court of Appeal had found “not an iota of evidence” that the money belonged to ABBE or to Armada, and held that PW13 held the RM120,000 on trust for Syed Saddiq himself [86]. Two people had actually run the fundraising dinners: Mohamed Amshar (DW2) and Nurul Hidayah binti Kamarudin — both named in PW13's own witness statement. Neither was called by the prosecution [92]–[94].
One can only conclude from this, as the COA did, that had they been called, it would have adversely impacted the prosecution case as their testimonies would have proved unfavourable, and thus the adverse presumption under section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was rightfully invoked.
If you decline to call the witnesses best placed to explain a matter, a court may presume their evidence would have hurt your case. Here it was fatal.
Where the bench divided
All three judges agreed on Charge 1. Abu Bakar Jais PCA, dissenting, put it bluntly: the charge itself was unclear, “akin as accusing your friend of being a thief and you had abetted him,” which alone was reason enough not to convict [15], [22].
On Charges 2 to 4 he parted company with his brethren.
The money is the donors' money and not the Respondent's money… It is not for the Respondent to use it as he pleases.
Conviction on Charges 2–4: six months' imprisonment and one stroke of the cane on the misappropriation charge, and six months plus a RM5,000,000 fine on each money-laundering charge [84]–[90]. He acknowledged the result was academic: “my learned brothers are not with me on the same” [91].
| Charge | Ruzima FCJ | Sequerah FCJ | Abu Bakar PCA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Abetment of CBT | Acquit | Acquit | Acquit |
| 2 · Misappropriation | Acquit | Acquit | Would convict |
| 3 · Money laundering | Acquit | Acquit | Would convict |
| 4 · Money laundering | Acquit | Acquit | Would convict |
Charges 3 and 4 could not survive independently: the predicate offence under s 403 having failed, the AMLA charges could not be sustained [122].
What the case stands for
- A Federal Court acquittal is the end of the road — there is no further appeal.
- Failing to call material witnesses can trigger the adverse presumption under s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950, and it can decide a case.
- Findings of improper pressure on witnesses go directly to credibility, and a trial court that ignores them risks a serious misdirection.
References
Legislation
- Penal Code (Act 574), ss 24, 107, 108, 109, 403, 405, 406
- Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Act 613), ss 3, 4(1)(b), Sch 2
- Evidence Act 1950, s 114(g)
Judgments
- PP v Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman, Federal Court, Criminal Appeal Nos 05(LB)-102-06/2025(W), 05(LB)-103-06/2025(W) and 05(LB)-104-06/2025(W) — Grounds of Judgment of Sequerah FCJ
- Ibid — Dissenting Judgment of Abu Bakar Jais PCA, 13 July 2026
- Court of Appeal, Nos W-05(SH)-555-11/2023, W-05(SH)-556-11/2023 and W-05(SH)-557-11/2023, 25 June 2025
- High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, No WA-45-22-11/2021