Kuala lumpur: The Sessions Court here today acquitted and discharged Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abdul Samad of all three charges of abetting in a corruption case involving RM2.8 million, linked to a RM150 million investment in Public Mutual Berhad unit trusts, dating back 11 years. Judge Rosli Ahmad delivered the ruling after finding that the defence had successfully raised reasonable doubts at the end of the defence's case.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, having considered the entirety of the evidence, the court found that the accused raised a reasonable doubt in the case, while the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. "Accordingly, this court orders that the accused be acquitted and discharged of all three charges," Judge Rosli stated. Zizie Izette, 47, the wife of the late former Kinabatangan Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin, appeared visibly moved upon hearing the court's decision.
Judge Rosli, in his judgment, emphasized that established legal principles require the prosecution to prove that the principal offence was committed before an accused can be convicted of abetment. In this case, the prosecution needed to demonstrate that the deceased, Bung Moktar, had committed the principal offence of obtaining a bribe under Section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act. With Bung Moktar's recent passing on Dec 5, 2025, the court ordered his discharge and acquittal, deeming him innocent, as no guilt was recorded against him. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bung Moktar had committed the offence of soliciting or obtaining a bribe.
Rosli explained that the discharge and acquittal effectively removed a fundamental element required to sustain the abetment charges against Zizie Izette, namely, proof that the principal offender had committed the corruption offence. The legal principle applied was that if the principal offender is discharged and acquitted, the alleged abettor cannot be convicted of abetment.
Further, Zizie Izette defended herself by claiming no knowledge of or involvement in her late husband's official duties as chairman of Felcra Berhad. This was corroborated by testimonies, including that of former Felcra Berhad Group Chief Financial Officer Mohd Azmy Abu Samah, which indicated that Zizie Izette was not involved in the alleged offence. The court deemed Zizie Izette's testimony credible, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence.
The court addressed the issue of an "introduction fee" received by Zizie Izette, which the defence argued was not a bribe. However, a prior ruling by Judge Rozina Ayob during the prosecution stage classified the fee as a bribe. Rosli stated that it would be inappropriate to reconsider this matter, as it would effectively review an earlier decision.
The proceedings saw participation from Deputy Public Prosecutors Law Chin How and Mohamad Fadhly Mohd Zamry, while Zizie Izette was defended by lawyers Datuk Seri K. Kumaraendran, Datuk M. Athimulan, and Ridha Abdah Subri. Post-ruling, Mohamad Fadhly indicated that the prosecution would seek further instructions from the Attorney General regarding a potential appeal.
Zizie Izette faced three charges of abetting her husband in receiving cash bribes totalling RM2.8 million. The defence concluded its case after Zizie Izette's testimony on March 5. Bung Moktar had testified on Sept 2, 2025, following the couple's unsuccessful attempt to overturn a Court of Appeal decision requiring them to enter their defence. On Jan 16, the Sessions Court acquitted Bung Moktar of all charges after his death led the prosecution not to proceed.
Zizie Izette's charges included abetting Bung Moktar in obtaining a RM2.2 million bribe from investment agent Madhi Abdul Hamid, intended as an inducement for investment approval. She also faced charges for abetting in obtaining RM262,500 and RM337,500 through accounts in her name for the same purpose. These alleged offences occurred at the Public Bank Berhad Taman Melawati branch in June 2015 and were framed under Section 28(1)(c) of the MACC Act 2009, carrying severe penalties upon conviction.