Daring move, or prudent one? The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has withdrawn its appeal against Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s acquittal on money-laundering charges after determining there’s no realistic chance of overturning the High Court’s ruling.
Originally, the AGC filed an appeal on December 20, 2024, challenging the High Court’s December 19, 2024 decision to strike out all 17 money-laundering charges against Rosmah. After a thorough review of the High Court’s written grounds of judgment, which the AGC received on October 30, the decision was made to discontinue the appeal. The AGC stated that, upon full evaluation, there was no prospect of success if the appeal proceeded.
Several factors influenced this conclusion. Notably, key witnesses who could establish the charges had either passed away or could not be located, making it improbable for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. The AGC emphasized that both factual and legal elements were carefully scrutinized before arriving at this decision and filed a notice of discontinuance on December 9 to formalize dropping the appeal.
Rosmah, aged 74, faced 12 money-laundering charges involving RM7.09 million and an additional five counts alleging failure to declare the same amount as income to the Inland Revenue Board. The alleged offenses occurred between December 4, 2013, and June 8, 2017, with charges filed on October 4, 2018. Her trial began August 24, 2023, but was paused after she filed a striking-out application on September 6, 2023.
With the appeal now discontinued, Rosmah remains free from all 17 money-laundering charges. Separately, her appeal in a related corruption case concerning a RM1.25 billion solar-hybrid project for rural Sarawak schools continues to be before the courts. Rosmah was convicted in 2022 on three corruption charges in that case, receiving a 10-year prison term and a RM970 million fine, with the sentence stayed pending the outcome of her appeal. The Court of Appeal has yet to hear the corruption appeal, and Rosmah is pursuing a bid to remove the trial judge; the Federal Court will hear that bid on February 25 next year.
This development raises questions about prosecutorial strategy and the challenges of securing convictions when crucial witnesses are unavailable. Do you think the decision to drop the appeal is a prudent acknowledgment of practical constraints, or does it undermine public accountability in high-profile cases? Share your thoughts in the comments.
