Syed Saddiq’s Final Acquittal: A 2-1 Federal Court Ruling on Proving Dishonesty

Seven years’ imprisonment, two strokes of the cane and a RM10 million fine: that was the sentence the High Court imposed on Syed Saddiq in November 2023. On 13 July 2026 the case ended in the Federal Court with none of it standing. By a 2–1 majority, the apex court dismissed the Public Prosecutor’s final appeal and affirmed the acquittal entered by the Court of Appeal about a year earlier. The reasoning, as reported, is a reminder of what separates a breach of an organisation’s internal rules from a crime of dishonesty.

Three courts, three different answers

High Court, 9 November 2023. Justice Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid convicted on all four charges and imposed the sentence described above.

Court of Appeal, 25 June 2025. Justices Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Azman Abdullah and Noorin Badaruddin unanimously set the convictions aside and acquitted. The court found that the trial judge had failed to consider contradictory evidence and the defence case, and had relied on a witness who, the court found, had testified under pressure from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. It regarded this as a serious failure in the way the decision had been reached.

Federal Court, 13 July 2026. Some two years and eight months after the conviction, the prosecution’s appeal, heard in December 2025, was dismissed by Justices Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Collin Lawrence Sequerah. The President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Abu Bakar Jais, dissented. Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik appeared for Syed Saddiq and Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin for the prosecution.

The majority: party rules are not the criminal law

Two strands of the majority’s reasoning were reported. Justice Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali observed that a political party’s constitution does not have the force of law; it is an internal rulebook binding the party’s members. The point, as reported, is that showing a departure from those rules is not the same as proving a criminal offence. Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah found no appealable error that would justify disturbing the acquittal.

Why the reasoning matters

Dishonesty has to be proved. Criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation are offences of dishonesty. It is not enough for the prosecution to show that money was handled in a way an organisation’s constitution did not authorise. The majority’s remark about the party constitution, as reported, goes to that distinction between an internal irregularity and a crime.

The defence must be weighed. The Court of Appeal’s findings were directed at process: a trial judge must evaluate evidence that contradicts the prosecution’s case, and must consider the defence. A finding that a witness relied on by the trial court testified under pressure goes to how much weight that evidence can bear.

Acquittals can be appealed, within limits. The Public Prosecutor has a right of appeal against an acquittal, and used it here. At the final tier, however, the question reported was whether the decision below contained an appealable error, and the majority found none.

Practical takeaways

• For office-bearers of societies, associations and companies: breaching an internal constitution or procedure is not automatically a crime, but clear records and written approvals for the use of funds remain prudent.

• Offences such as criminal breach of trust and misappropriation turn on a dishonest state of mind, which the prosecution must prove.

• A conviction may be set aside if the trial court does not properly consider the defence or contradictory evidence.

• Evidence found to have been given under coercion can undermine a prosecution.

• A split decision is still a decision. The majority view prevails, and a dissent does not alter the result.

Status

The Federal Court is the final court of appeal, so the acquittal is final. As at 19 September 2026 we have found no pending proceedings arising from these charges, and no law-report citation for the Federal Court’s decision was available to us.

Authorities and sources

• Federal Court, 13 July 2026: Public Prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of Syed Saddiq, dismissed 2–1 (no report citation available).

• Court of Appeal, 25 June 2025 (unanimous acquittal); High Court, 9 November 2023 (conviction and sentence).

• Penal Code, sections 403 and 406; Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, section 4(1)(b).

• The Star and Malay Mail, 13 July 2026; Malay Mail, 25 June 2025; The Star, 11 December 2025.

This article is general legal information only and is current as at 19 September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Court decisions may be appealed and the law may change; please seek advice on your own circumstances. — Chris & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors