In April 2022, an MP, reportedly citing Section 29(3) of the MACC Act said the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) must first verify the facts in a report before it can open an investigation under the MACC Act.
Section 29(3) of the Act said where an officer of the commission has reason to suspect the commission of an offence under this Act following a report made under subsection (1), he shall cause an investigation to be carried out and for such purpose may exercise all the powers of investigation provided for under this Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
That provision was there to ensure that complaints have basis before probes are launched against persons named in reports.
If this has not been done, the subject matter cannot yet be probed as there is nothing yet to probe as the basis of the complaint has not been established.
The MP reportedly joined civil group G25 in seeking clarification from the MACC on whether it had thoroughly investigated the credibility of the claims made against a sitting Judge by a blogger.
SPRM reportedly follows a strict, step-by-step legal procedure and process on the opening of an official investigation wherein:-
- Receipt of a Report: The process begins under Section 29 of the MACC Act 2009, which allows officers to act upon a formal complaint. This report can be lodged by a known complainant, a whistleblower, or an anonymous source.
- Own Volition (Suo Motu): The MACC does not always wait for a public complaint. It has the legal power to initiate an investigation on its own volition based on media exposures, whistleblowing leaks, or internal intelligence.
- The Information Evaluation Committee (IEC): Before an official Investigation Paper (IP) is opened, the raw information is sent to the MACC's internal Information Evaluation Committee.
- Fact Verification: The IEC conducts a preliminary background check to verify the baseline facts. This ensures the complaint falls squarely within the MACC's legal jurisdiction and is not a frivolous personal grievance.
- Forming "Reasonable Suspicion": If the preliminary verification reveals a plausible basis that a "prescribed offence" (such as bribery, abuse of power, or corporate liability) took place, an official investigation is launched
To get past the Information Evaluation Committee (IEC) and trigger an active case, a complaint needs to feature concrete, actionable details rather than vague accusations.
The preliminary "quality information" includes:
- Specific Offence Elements: The report must point to an offense under the MACC Act 2009 (e.g., Section 16/17 for accepting/giving bribes, Section 23 for abuse of power, or Section 17A for corporate liability).
- Identifiable Target Parties: Clear details on who is involved—such as naming the specific "Officer of a Public Body" (politicians, civil servants, or judges) or the commercial organisation involved.
- The "Gratification" Variable: Details regarding the transaction or benefit, which can include cash amounts, properties, positions, promises, or inflated contract values.
- Supporting Audits or Timelines: Basic documents such as financial transaction records, problematic tender awards, or public asset declarations that show unexplained wealth disproportionate to an official's income.
So when the new Chief Commissioner of MACC reportedly said allegations involving an alleged RM2.5 billion money laundering scheme linked to IJM were not substantiated following investigations, were the above a strict, step-by-step legal procedure and process followed before the opening of an official investigation earlier?
What and where was the source for the information that led to the commencement of an investigation at the initial stage?
Similarly, in the investigations into the ARM Holdings allegations, did it follow the strict step by step legal procedure and process prior to the opening of an official investigation?
The new Chief Commissioner of MACC reportedly said recently that the investigation into ARM Holdings is still continuing as they are in the midst of seeking mutual legal assistance to obtain statements from several people in Taiwan and the UK.
If investigations are still continuing, how and what drew MACC to conclude and recommend to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) that two individuals face criminal charges over the ARM matter?
Hmmmm…….
FLK (leekhean.foo@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.