Wrong To Prosecute Persons For Unexplained Money In Bank Says Lawyer

---

 
The 10 men emerging from the courthouse after they were fined for being unable to explain how they obtained the money belonging to a teacher. (Bernama pic)KUALA LUMPUR: A lawyer has claimed that a charge framed against 10 men for failing to provide an explanation as to how RM3.14 million that belonged to a teacher was found in their bank accounts is defective.
T Gunaseelan said the High Court in Penang had, two years ago, held that charging any person under Section 29 of the Minor Offences Act for money found in a bank account which could not be accounted for was bad in law.
He said the Minor Offences Act could not be applied to banking transactions as one was not in possession of a property.
“Here, the bank is the debtor while the account holder is merely a creditor and there is no possession,” said Gunaseelan, who represented his client in an appeal.
The High Court ruling is pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
In that case (Harpajan Kaur a/p Delib Singh v Public Prosecutor, 7MLJ 2021), then judicial commissioner Radzi Abdul Hamid said the magistrate had erred in finding that a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution.
Radzi, now a High Court judge, had said there was no judicial appreciation of whether the law applied to the facts as stated in the charge.
Gunaseelan said the 10 men should file a revision before the High Court to set aside their conviction and sentence by the Ampang magistrates’ court on June 10.
“Alternatively, a High Court judge in Kuala Lumpur, on his own motion, should call up the file. The conviction is bad in law,” he said.
The men, aged between 29 and 51, were fined RM1,000 or three month’s jail by the court.
They were accused of not being able to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how they obtained the money belonging to a 31-year-old teacher.
They were charged under the Minor Offences Act which provides for a maximum fine of RM1,000 or a maximum jail term of one year, or both, upon conviction.
The prosecution told the court the teacher had handed over his banking details to a man who phoned and introduced himself as the chief tax operating officer of the Inland Revenue Board. - FMT

---