Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Misappropriation: The entrusted person dishonestly misuses or converts the property

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Under Section 406 of the Penal Code, a person convicted of CBT faces imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, a fine, or both. In cases involving public servants or agents (under Section 409), the penalty is harsher, with imprisonment of up to 20 years, along with a fine and possible whipping.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Ethical Breach and Misleading the Court
Lawyers are bound by ethical codes that prohibit misleading the court. In most jurisdictions, if a lawyer knowingly presents a false argument or misrepresents facts, they can face disciplinary action.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Suspension: Temporary removal of the right to practice law

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Or more apppropriate would be disbarment: Permanent revocation of the lawyer’s license to practice.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

In cases where public trust is violated, such as laundering public funds under the guise of welfare, any lawyer attempting to argue innocence based on such justification would likely violate ethical principles.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Obstruction of Justice: Knowingly deceiving or misleading the court may result in charges related to obstructing the judicial process.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Complicity or Aiding and Abetting: If the lawyer is found to have been actively involved in the scheme, they could be considered complicit in the crime of CBT or money laundering.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Judicial Precedents
Courts have a duty to take a strong stance against lawyers who mislead the judicial process, especially in high-profile cases involving public trust. Judges may impose strict penalties on such lawyers, ensuring that the integrity of the legal system is upheld.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

No Excuse for Channeling to Welfare
The law does not excuse criminal actions, even if the funds are redirected for charitable purposes. The principles of *mens rea* (criminal intent) and *actus reus* (criminal act) still apply, and laundering funds, regardless of their final destination, is illegal. The court is unlikely to entertain a defense based on the notion that laundering money for welfare purposes negates the crime.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Criminal Charges:
If an unsrupulous senior and experience lawyer knowingly misleads the court, they should be made to face criminal charges, particularly for obstruction of justice or complicity in the crime.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Rightfully under Section 186 of the Malaysian Penal Code, obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their public functions can lead to up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine, or both. However, more serious forms of obstruction, including perverting the course of justice, may carry heavier penalties.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

If the lawyer is complicit in the criminal breach of trust, the Penal Code Section 409 (CBT by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent) provides for punishment up to 20 years imprisonment, a fine, and whipping.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Under Section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) in Malaysia, anyone convicted of money laundering may be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison and face a fine of not less than five times the sum of the proceeds of the unlawful activity or RM5 million, whichever is higher.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Lawyers are bound by professional ethical codes, such as those outlined in the Legal Profession Act 1976 (Malaysia), which prohibit misleading the court.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers the Disciplinary Board to strike a lawyer off the roll or suspend them for misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, especially in misleading the court.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

And in such a case, the court must pursue under offense of "Complicity in Money Laundering or CBT":
If a lawyer is directly involved in the laundering of public funds or aiding in a CBT, they could also face criminal prosecution under the same laws applicable to the primary offenders (such as Penal Code Section 409 for CBT and AMLA Section 4 for money laundering). In such cases, the punishment for the lawyer would be similar to the penalties imposed on those convicted of these offenses; as well as indirectly sharing the loots from public fund - depends on income tax filed by the said lawyer

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Perjury or False Evidence:
If the lawyer presents false evidence or induces a witness to commit perjury, Section 193 of the Penal Code (giving or fabricating false evidence) applies, which carries a punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment and a fine.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

The combination of criminal sanctions and professional disbarment would likely constitute the most appropriate punishment for any lawyer involved in misleading the court in such serious cases, hence serves as deterrent to other law practitioners

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

**Title: "The Courtroom of Justice"**

*Scene: A packed courtroom, with the air heavy with anticipation. On one side, a senior and experienced lawyer, Mr. Ramin, stands defending his client, a high-ranking government servant, Mr. Karim, accused of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering. At the bench, Judge Sophia is known for her sharp mind and no-nonsense approach to justice.*

**Judge Sophia**: (Leaning forward slightly) Mr. Ramin, I’ve listened carefully to your defense over the past few days. And I must say, your arguments are... inventive, to put it kindly. Today, you seem to suggest that the exorbitant fees paid to you were—how did you put it?—part of a welfare scheme to support your client’s 'charitable' endeavors?

**Mr. Ramin**: (Smiling confidently) Your Honor, it is well known that my client, Mr. Karim, has dedicated years of service to public welfare. My fees were a means to assist him in managing his funds for these noble causes, albeit indirectly. Yes, the money came from public funding, but the intention behind its use was for the betterment of the people.

**Judge Sophia**: (Smirking) Ah, I see. So, you’re now claiming that siphoning public funds, laundering them through your law firm, and then distributing them under the guise of legal fees was... benevolent?

**Mr. Ramin**: (Hesitating) I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that, Your Honor. But I believe the outcome of the funds speaks for itself. Welfare, after all—

**Judge Sophia**: (Interrupting, her tone sharp) Welfare, Mr. Ramin? Do you mean to suggest that *your* inflated bank account is a model of public welfare? That’s a very curious definition. In fact, I would almost call it a personal welfare scheme—one that seems to benefit you more than the public.

**(The courtroom murmurs. Mr. Ramin shifts uncomfortably, losing some of his composure.)**

**Mr. Ramin**: Your Honor, I assure you, everything was done within the bounds of legality. The fees charged were for legal services rendered, and—

**Judge Sophia**: (Cutting in with a raised eyebrow) Legal services rendered, Mr. Ramin? I have no doubt you rendered *some* services, but I am beginning to question *whom* they were for. If I recall correctly, Mr. Karim diverted public funds amounting to millions for 'consultancy fees'—fees which, curiously, ended up in your hands. Was this not the same public servant whose signature you advised on nearly every document in this sordid affair?

**Mr. Ramin**: (Stammering) Well, I... I... simply followed my client's instructions.

**Judge Sophia**: (Leaning back in her chair) Instructions to what, Mr. Ramin? Cover up his crimes? Deflect from the theft of public money by arguing he was somehow using it for charitable purposes? You seem to be confusing legal representation with complicity.

**Mr. Ramin**: Your Honor, I object to this characterization! I am simply a lawyer doing my duty to the best of my abilities.

**Judge Sophia**: (Smiling coldly) A lawyer doing his duty, indeed. But there’s one problem with your ‘best efforts,’ Mr. Ramin. They have not only failed to clear your client’s name but also brought your own integrity into question. You seem to believe that laundering money through legal fees is some kind of loophole. You misjudged the law... and perhaps you misjudged this court. (Pauses for effect) The law does not smile upon those who seek to mislead it.

**(The courtroom is silent. Judge Sophia lets the weight of her words hang.)**

**Mr. Ramin**: (Attempting to regain control) Your Honor, I maintain that all fees were legitimate, and as for Mr. Karim—

**Judge Sophia**: (Interrupting, her voice icy) Let me be clear, Mr. Ramin. You are not on trial for the fees—at least not yet. But you are teetering dangerously close to being held accountable for abetting your client’s crimes. Sharing in the spoils of public corruption under the guise of legal fees will not protect you, no matter how skillfully you think you’ve crafted your defense. And as for Mr. Karim’s ‘welfare contributions’—the court sees through them as easily as it sees through this charade. Public funds are meant for public good, not for lining the pockets of those who are supposed to serve the people.

**(Mr. Ramin is visibly shaken, his confidence crumbling.)**

**Judge Sophia**: (Turning to the prosecutor) Prosecutor, prepare the case for final arguments. We’ve heard enough. Mr. Karim’s actions are as clear as the daylight, and no amount of legal theatrics will obscure the facts. And as for you, Mr. Ramin, I suggest you review the professional code of conduct for lawyers before you return to this courtroom.

**(The gavel strikes. The courtroom erupts in whispers, with Mr. Ramin slumping into his seat, his once confident posture now replaced by defeat.)**

**Judge Sophia**: Court adjourned.

*End scene.*

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 2 months ago | Report Abuse

Lawyers who attempt to mislead the court, particularly in a clear-cut case involving criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering, face serious legal and ethical consequences. In such cases, where public funds are involved, and the argument centers around laundering for welfare purposes, the lawyer could still face sanctions, as the law does not permit such justifications.