'Doesn't make sense': MACC told to justify Bersatu leader's compound

PARLIAMENT | M Kulasegaran (Harapan-Ipoh Barat) will request the MACC to explain why Bersatu leader Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad was fined a lower amount than what he was said to have solicited in his now-discontinued corruption trial.

Asserting the matter is “weird and does not make sense”, the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) said he will seek the anti-graft agency’s written explanation on the matter.

“I don’t understand the logic - how can you be said to have taken RM4.6 million, but only (made to pay) a compound of RM4.1 million? Where is the remaining RM500,000?” he asked in his winding-up speech for the Supply Bill 2026 at the committee stage.

“The prosecution appealed for a DNAA (discharge not amounting to an acquittal), but the court granted an acquittal - it’s not (within) the MACC’s powers to control the discretion of the judge, but even I find the RM500,000 (issue) weird.

“A lot of lawmakers here are also wondering… if it’s like this, then tomorrow we will be ‘syiok’ (enjoying) stealing too (as) we will only be issued a compound lesser (than the amount stolen),” he added in the Dewan Rakyat today.

Kulasegaran (above) earlier noted that based on information from the MACC, the bribe amount in the Segambut Bersatu deputy chief’s case was RM4.6 million, not RM9.9 million as reported by certain news sites.

He said this in response to the debate by DAP MP Teresa Kok (Harapan-Seputeh), who questioned why Adam was allowed to keep a certain amount of funds after paying a compound, which led to his acquittal of all 12 graft and money laundering charges.

During Kulasegaran’s speech, he and Kok’s party colleague Ramkarpal Singh (Harapan-Bukit Gelugor) interjected to question whether MACC’s decision not to appeal Adam’s acquittal signifies an “acceptance” of the court’s decision.

“MACC’s decision is their own, but as lawmakers, we can give our views, and there are certain committees where certain pressures can be applied,” Kulasegaran said.

“Nobody is above the law. Why wasn’t there an appeal? I will request the MACC to provide a written explanation on what basis they decided to not appeal, considering this is a very sensitive matter (that) the public and Madani government cannot accept,” he added.

Adam’s acquittal

On Aug 20, Adam was granted an acquittal on five charges under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act 2009 and seven charges under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing, and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (Amla) 2001.

The deputy public prosecutor told the court then that MACC had, on June 3, accepted Adam’s representation letter and a proposal for the RM4.1 million compound to be paid under Section 92(1) of Amla.

Section 92(4) of Amla states that where an offence has been compounded under subsection (1), no prosecution shall be pushed in respect of the said offence against the person to whom the compound offer was made.

In a written parliamentary reply yesterday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said stated that the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court judge decided to acquit Adam under Section 254(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Graft watchdog C4 Center previously slammed the prosecution’s move to drop the charges against Adam in exchange for a compound payment, asserting that the decision exposes weakness in prosecutorial transparency and casts doubt on the integrity of the nation’s criminal justice system.

Reporting by Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain, Hariz Mohd, Shakira Buang

Would prosecutors cut same deal for milk stealer as Adam Radlan? - Rafizi

Bersatu man's acquittal raises doubts on justice system, says C4

COMMENT | A mockery of fight against corruption

Jana Wibawa: Bersatu leader freed of graft after paying RM4m compound