PUTRAJAYA (Dec 11): Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman asked for public money "on a narrative of sacrifice", but instead used the funds for himself, the prosecution argued in its final appeal hearing of the Muar MP's corruption case which started on Thursday.
Touching on the alleged misappropriation of RM120,000 belonging to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE) in April 2018, deputy public prosecutor Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib said the funds were "raised from public generosity" and "not a tribute to [Syed Saddiq], nor a personal purse for private discretion".
ABBE is a company set up to generate income for Bersatu's youth wing Armada through merchandise sales. It had donations of RM120,000 in its account, which was later transferred to Syed Saddiq's personal Maybank account.
Syed Saddiq, who was formerly Youth and Sports Minister, has always maintained the these funds were a reimbursement to himself for spending his own monies for the 2018 election campaign, with receipts sent to the Election Commission (EC) documenting the expenditure.
The prosecution is appealing the Court of Appeal (COA)'s decision in June which acquitted Syed Saddiq of all four charges consisting of abetting criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation of party funds and money-laundering charges.
The COA had reversed the earlier High Court finding of guilt and the subsequent sentence against the Syed Saddiq, who co-founded the MUDA party after leaving Bersatu.
Akram, in his written submission to the Federal Court, argued that the appellate court had erred in its findings when it described the funds as a "conversion" instead of a "misappropriation".
"The COA rewrote the charge and rewrote the law and this warrants the Federal Court's intervention. The COA applied a different test and because of the error in their approach, the COA judgement can't be relied on. The court has to go back to the High Court findings," he argued.
By using the test for "conversion", the COA had "diluted the fiduciary character of the funds and...collapsed trust obligation into personal entitlement", Akram said.
'Same species but different ingredient'
During the submissions, one of the three-member panel Datuk Che Ruzima Ghazali pointed out that the COA provided explanation for its interpretation and it has the leeway to do so based on their reading of the case.
To this, Akram countered that he respectfully disagrees as "it was an offence that was the same species but constituted different ingredient".
"What is on their [COA]'s mind, it's respectfully wrong. It treats the funds as ownership, entitlement, when that is not the case," he said.
Akram argued that if he was to ask for donations from public, not many would donate. But that is not the case for Syed Saddiq, " who was a figure of undeniable charisma and promise, rose to public life carried by the optimism of those who believed in his cause".
Syed Saddiq had the responsibility not to mislead the public, he added. "It was the people’s faith made tangible — collected for a single, solemn purpose: to finance a campaign, not to enrich a candidate.
"The High Court saw this with clarity. The moment those funds were transferred from a trust account into a personal account, the fiduciary boundary was crossed and the misappropriation complete," he said.
It has to be noted that the misappropriation charge is one of two main charges which are separate and not connected to each other.
'Elements of abetment established'
For the other main charge, Syed Saddiq was acquitted of abetting former Armada assistant treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali in committing criminal breach of trust by withdrawing RM1 million of party funds in March 2020.
Tackling this charge, DPP Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin argued that Syed Saddiq was the "mastermind" behind the CBT, and that the elements of abetment was well-established; that the act was not done in good faith, it was done intentionally and that the instructions were communicated.
However, the COA had taken Rafiq's evidence in bits and pieces but it had to be looked at as a whole, Wan Shaharuddin said.
"By law, there is no need for Rafiq's evidence to be corroborated. However, prosecution witnesses have corroborated the evidence which show that their testimonies ring true," he argued.
"The entirety of the evidence has to be looked at cumulatively. We can't just focus on the act of withdrawal. We have to also see what prompted the withdrawal and [Syed Saddiq's] conduct after the withdrawal," he said.
The hearing of the appeal continues on Friday before the panel, led by Court of Appeal President Datuk Abu Bakar Jais alongside Che Ruziman and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.