KOTA KINABALU: The Court of Appeal here overturned the High Court’s decision which set aside former Labuan Member of Parliament Datuk Suhaili Abdul Rahman’s conviction and sentence for failing to declare his bankruptcy status in a bank loan application more than 15 years ago.
Federal Court judge Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif who sat together with Court of Appeal judges Datuk Sulong Matjeraie and Datuk Hj Mohamed Apandi Ali yesterday allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the High Court’s decision last year.
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge bench held that the High Court was wrong in its decision as the criminal offence still subsists although Suhaili’s bankruptcy was annulled later after that.
“The Sessions Court’s decision in convicting and imposing the fine on the respondent (Suhaili) was reinstated,” said Md Raus who then ordered Suhaili to pay the RM10,000 fine.
The court made the decision after hearing arguments from deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Bache from Putrajaya and Suhaili’s counsel Rakhbir Singh.
On March 10, last year, Suhaili, 48, was fined RM10,000 in default one month’s jail by Sessions Court judge Duncan Sikodol after the former pleaded guilty to acting as a guarantor for a RM110,000 loan and a RM50,000 overdraft sought by Syarikat Saraequity Sdn Bhd to buy an apartment on the second floor of Api-Api Centre here without informing the Malayan Banking Berhad Kota Kinabalu Branch that he was a bankrupt.
The charge stated that Suhaili had committed the offence at the bank’s premises on April 3, 1996.
He was charged under Section 109 (1) (m) (iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 which provides for a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both.
On March 16, the same year, Suhaili filed a notice of appeal and a motion for revision against his conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. On Sept 27, 2010, the High Court set aside Suhaili’s conviction and sentence and ordered the fine paid by the latter to be returned. The High Court ruled that the bankruptcy of Suhaili was annulled because he should not have been adjudged bankrupt in the first place.
“In the situation it would clearly be wrong to prosecute the appellant for an alleged bankruptcy offence,” the High Cour judge said.
Earlier in his submissions, Ahmad told the three-judge bench that the High Court’s decision in setting aside Suhaili’s conviction and fine was wrong. “In this case, the respondent (Suhaili) was declared bankrupt on Feb 19, 1993 until the Receiving Order and Adjudication Order (RO&AO) was annulled on May 9, 1997.
“He was a bankrupt when he committed the offence, namely for not informing the bank that at the material time he was a bankrupt when he became a guarantor for the loan facility in March 3, 1996,” he said.
He submitted that the RO&AO were obtained from the Bankruptcy Court where the Criminal Court does not have the jurisdiction to make a finding or decision by saying that there was a defect in Bankruptcy Notice that was issued by the Bankruptcy Court in which the order has been issued.
Counsel Rakhbir Singh acted for Suhaili.