Research

When power changes, cases change: Inside Malaysia's biggest political corruption prosecutions

By Projek SAMA

Scroll to read the story

Since the historic 2018 general election that toppled the Barisan Nasional government, Malaysia has seen an unprecedented wave of corruption charges against top politicians. But as governments changed, so did the fate of these cases.

An analysis by Projek SAMA of 33 high-profile cases shows how corruption prosecutions in Malaysia are shaped by changes in government, prosecutorial decisions, and a court process that often stretches over years.

Such cases are often hard for the public to follow, obscured by a thicket of multiple charges, interlocutory manoeuvres, and reversals. Most controversial are outcomes like the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) — a decision that often sparks public outcry because it leaves justice in limbo and reinforces the bitter perception of “dua darjat”: the sense that there is one law for the powerful and another for the ordinary citizen.

Ultimately, the public loses the thread when a case begins under one government, moves slowly under another, and ends — if it ends at all — under a third.

This database analyses these 33 cases in aggregate to cut through that procedural fog. Beyond individual defendants, the data reveal a broader pattern of how timing and institutional shifts influence justice. By tracking case movements and prosecutorial pivots across administrations, we provide the clarity needed to understand — and scrutinise — the lifecycle of high-profile corruption in Malaysia.

Read the methodology, access the dataset, or ask our AI assistant about specific cases.

Prosecutorial Accountability Watch (PAW) — donate a brick

Contribute a brick to build the wall of Prosecutorial Accountability Watch (PAW) for a Malaysia without Dua Darjat.

Buy a Brick →

Part 1

‘Charges cluster’ after 2018, but outcomes spread across later governments

The clearest pattern in the dataset is that the overwhelming majority of charges were filed in the period immediately following the 14th general election (GE14) in 2018.

Of the 33 cases reviewed, only one was first charged before GE14: former finance minister Lim Guan Eng's 2016 bungalow case. Most of the others were filed after BN lost federal power. While the largest share of initial charges occurred under the Pakatan Harapan administration, additional cases began under the Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, and current Anwar Ibrahim administrations.

A critical finding is the disconnect between when a case is filed and when it is resolved. While political and public attention is highest when charges are filed, the most consequential legal developments — convictions, acquittals, or procedural discharges — frequently occur years later under entirely different administrations. This “procedural disconnect” suggests that the administration initiating a case is rarely the one that sees it through to a final verdict.

This is important for how the public understands anti-corruption enforcement. Initiating charges is one stage. Sustaining a prosecution through trial and appeals is another. Many significant case developments, including both landmark convictions and controversial discharges, have reached their tipping points only under the current Madani government.

It should be noted that Ismail Sabri is the only figure in the dataset who was still under investigation rather than formally charged. His Keluarga Malaysia case was included in the database for future tracking.

The visualisation below maps the timelines of the 33 cases against different administrations.

Convicted

Convicted (first trial)

DAA (trial)

DAA (prosecutorial)

DAA (after death)

DNAA

Ongoing

Unknown

Not formally charged

Each line represents a case, colored by outcome. Background bands show government administrations.

Mass charging period: A significant number of cases — involving former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak's multiple cases, former Sabah chief minister Musa Aman, and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi — were initiated during the Pakatan Harapan administration following the 2018 election. The brief window of reform saw more high-profile corruption charges than any other period in Malaysian history.

The Language of “Discharge”

The public often loses the thread when a case ends in a discharge rather than a clear “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” verdict. The distinction is critical:

DNAA — Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal

The prosecution “temporarily” withdraws the charge and the accused can walk free. However, should new evidence emerge, the prosecution can return and charge the accused again. It is neither a conviction nor an acquittal — it is just a pause. The accused is thus in limbo.

DAA — Discharge Amounting to Acquittal

A DAA means the case is closed for good. The accused walks away fully cleared — not just released, but acquitted. There is no possibility of being charged again for the same matter. An accused can obtain a DAA after the full court process, or when the prosecution withdraws the charges. This study differentiates these two types of DAAs in the analysis of case outcomes.

DAA after full trial

Court granted acquittal after the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case, or the defendant succeeded in their defence.

DAA due to prosecutorial conduct

DAA after the prosecution applies for withdrawal. The prosecution has the discretion to apply for withdrawal of charges at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. In such an event, the prosecution will, by default, request the court to grant a DNAA. The defence team will argue for a full DAA so the accused cannot be re-charged. The court has the power to grant either DNAA or DAA — and if a DNAA is granted, after some lapse of time the accused can apply again for a full DAA.

How DAA and DNAA can occur in a case

Cases ending with DAA or DNAA were seen in all four administrations

Each ring shows the cases resolved under one prime minister. A case's position on the ring tells you how the case ended.

DAA after full trial

DAA — prosecutorial

DNAA

Mahathir Mohamad

May 2018 – Feb 2020

Note: *Not all DAA were decided by the court on the merits of the case. Most DAA and DNAA were the result of the prosecution's discretion and conduct - withdrawal of charges, delay, postponement, and abandoning appeals or non compliance with court rules.

Two cases - involving former finance minister Daim Zainuddin and former Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin - resulting in DAAs following their deaths in late 2024 and 2025, were not included in the table above, as the law does not allow criminal proceedings to continue against the deceased.

Twelve other cases are still going through the long legal process: Najib (1MDB-Tanore); Lim (undersea tunnel); Muhyiddin (Jana Wibawa); former Muda president Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman (Armada); former Bersatu leader Wan Saiful Wan Jan (Jana Wibawa); former Penang deputy chief minister II P Ramasamy (Penang Hindu Endowments Board); former Sabah assistant minister Andi Suryady Bandy; Sindumin assemblyperson Yusof Yacob (Sabah mineral bribery); former aide to Anwar, Shamsul Iskandar Akin (Sabah mineral bribery); Padang Serai assemblyperson Azman Nasrudin (cattle project bribery); Terengganu exco Hanafiah Mat (bribery for sons); as well as former Kota Laksamana assemblyperson and Lim's wife Betty Chew (money laundering).

Ismail Sabri (Keluarga Malaysia) is currently under investigation but not formally charged.

At the time of writing, the status of two cases could not be confirmed — former MP Nasharudin's remaining charges (14 CBT and three money laundering) and former Sulabayan assemblyperson Lan Allani (corruption and money laundering). No reliable updates were available to determine whether proceedings are still active or have been concluded.

To date, only two cases out of the 33 have been finalised with a conviction upheld through the Federal Court. The first was Najib's SRC case that resulted in a 12-year prison sentence, which was subsequently reduced to six years by the Pardons Board. The board also reduced his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.

The second was former minister Isa Abdul Samad's bribery case that ended with a six-year prison sentence and a fine of RM15.45 million. Subsequent to that, he filed an application to review the conviction and sentence.

Use the interactive chart below to show cases of a particular politician.

Explore by politician:

Convicted

Convicted (first trial)

DAA (trial)

DAA (prosecutorial)

DAA (after death)

DNAA

Ongoing

Unknown

Not formally charged

Select a politician to filter

Party affiliation adds another layer of analysis. The dataset contains cases involving figures from Umno, Bersatu, DAP, PAS, Muda, Warisan, and others, though Umno-linked figures make up the largest share. This appears to suggest a correlation between the duration of a political coalition being in power and the number of corruption cases, which became clear when scrutiny intensified after it lost power.

Case outcomes by political party of the accused

Convicted

Convicted (first trial)

Ongoing

DAA after trial

DAA — prosecutorial

DAA after death

DNAA

UMNO/BN

DAP

BERSATU

PAS

Gagasan Rakyat Sabah

WARISAN

PKR

MUDA

Part 2

Cost to the Rakyat

Malaysia has lost approximately RM277 billion due to corruption in the five years between 2018 and 2023, or RM55 billion a year, according to MACC. The public funds siphoned behind every corruption case could have been used for public infrastructure — schools, hospitals, public transport, and more.

The total cumulative amount of direct misappropriations, bribes, and financial gains cited in the charges across the 33 cases is approximately RM10.68 billion.

This is a conservative estimate. It excludes cases where values are not specified in charge sheets or stated by investigators — such as abuse of power for audit tampering — and focuses on the specific losses cited by prosecutors rather than total project values. For example, in Lim's tunnel case in 2020, while the undersea tunnel project was valued at RM6.34 billion, the specific charges centred on the misappropriation of state land valued at RM208.8 million.

The chart below ranks all cases by the amount of misappropriated funds involved. Cases ending in DNAA or DAA — meaning charges were dropped — are highlighted. Hover or tap each bar to see more details about the nature of the amount.

Amounts of Misappropriated Funds

Each circle is a case, sized by the amount involved. Toggle between an ungrouped view and one grouped by case outcome.

Note: The cases of Daim, Najib (1MDB Audit), Azman, and Hanafiah are not included in the chart as they don't involve a specific amount of funds. The cases of Rozman and Tengku Adnan (Penal Code) are excluded as they were given a DAA after full trial.

The funds involved in two of Najib's cases dwarf all others in the dataset. His Ipic case represents the single largest amount at RM6.64 billion in misappropriated government allocations, followed by the 1MDB-Tanore case involving approximately RM2.28 billion in gratification and money laundering proceeds.

After that, the amounts fall sharply, though still significant. Several cases involve sums in the hundreds of millions, such as the RM700 million linked to Ismail Sabri's investigation over Keluarga Malaysia campaign funds, the RM232.5 million allegedly solicited from private companies for Bersatu in Muhyiddin's case, and the RM208.6 million in state government lands connected to Lim's tunnel case.

Many others involve amounts in the tens of millions of ringgit or below. A smaller number of cases — involving alleged failure to declare assets or abuse of power in altering audit reports — do not involve a specific monetary amount.

Smaller amounts should not be dismissed. While RM1 million or RM2 million may seem minor next to a multi-billion-ringgit scandal, these are still public funds — which could be used to build schools, hospitals, or reach the people they were meant to serve. To provide context, the visualisation below compares these figures to the average Malaysian's monthly wage and the cost of essential public infrastructure.

Comparing Misappropriated Funds to Average Salaries and Costs of Hospital and Schools

Select a politician to compare misappropriated funds to public infrastructure costs

Select a politician

Select a politician above to see the cost comparison

Notes on the figures used above:

The median monthly wage of RM2,864 is taken from the median monthly wage of Malaysia's 7.06 million formal employees in September 2025, reported by the Statistics Department.
The RM96 million cost to build a school is derived from the official statement of the Education Ministry in 2023, which stated that RM2.5 billion in the federal budget was allocated to build 26 new schools.
The RM259 million cost to build a hospital is the average of two recent official project figures: Seberang Jaya Hospital's new multistorey block (RM371 million) and Hospital Seri Iskandar (RM147.82 million).

Part 3

Prosecutorial decisions shape case outcomes

A corruption case is not shaped only by what happens in front of a judge. It is also shaped by decisions made by prosecutors, especially at the level of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

In Malaysia, the attorney-general (AG) holds discretionary power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to institute, conduct, or discontinue any criminal proceedings. This power dictates not only which cases reach trial but also which are withdrawn before a verdict can be reached.

Analysis of the 33 cases across the tenures of four recent attorneys-general — Tommy Thomas, Idrus Harun, Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh, and Dusuki Mokhtar — reveals distinct patterns in how legal momentum shifted from the initiation of charges to various forms of discharge and final convictions.

Case Outcomes by Attorney-General

Each AG's tenure tells a different story. Cell intensity reflects how many cases reached each outcome under that AG.

Attorney General	Final conviction	First trial conviction	DAA after trial	DAA — prosecutorial	DNAA
Tommy Thomas 4 June 2018 – 28 February 2020 Initiated majority of high-profile cases; DAA – Lim's tunnel case.	0	0	0	1	0
Idrus Harun 6 March 2020 – 6 September 2023 Conviction – Najib (SRC); DAAs – Musa and four more; DNAAs – Zahid (Akalbudi) and two more.	1	0	1	5	3
Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh 6 September 2023 – 11 November 2024 Reinstated Muhyiddin's charges; Syed Saddiq's conviction at High Court; Najib (1MDB Audit) DAA finalised.	0	1	0	1	0
Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar 12 November 2024 – present Najib (1MDB-Tanore) conviction at High Court; Isa's final conviction; NFA – Zahid (Akalbudi); DAA – Zahid (VLN); DNAA – Najib (Ipic & SRC 2).	1	1	0	1	2

Tommy Thomas

4 June 2018 – 28 February 2020

Final conviction0

First trial conviction0

DAA after trial0

DAA — prosecutorial1

DNAA0

Initiated majority of high-profile cases; DAA – Lim's tunnel case.

Idrus Harun

6 March 2020 – 6 September 2023

Final conviction1

First trial conviction0

DAA after trial1

DAA — prosecutorial5

DNAA3

Conviction – Najib (SRC); DAAs – Musa and four more; DNAAs – Zahid (Akalbudi) and two more.

Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh

6 September 2023 – 11 November 2024

Final conviction0

First trial conviction1

DAA after trial0

DAA — prosecutorial1

DNAA0

Reinstated Muhyiddin's charges; Syed Saddiq's conviction at High Court; Najib (1MDB Audit) DAA finalised.

Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar

12 November 2024 – present

Final conviction1

First trial conviction1

DAA after trial0

DAA — prosecutorial1

DNAA2

Najib (1MDB-Tanore) conviction at High Court; Isa's final conviction; NFA – Zahid (Akalbudi); DAA – Zahid (VLN); DNAA – Najib (Ipic & SRC 2).

Cases per cell

Note: The cases of Daim and Bung were excluded due to the reasons explained earlier. The cases for Nasharudin's remaining charges and Lan's are also excluded as their latest status is unknown. Ismail Sabri's case has not been formally charged.

Tommy Thomas

4 June 2018 – 28 February 2020

The tenure of Thomas was characterised primarily by the initiation of the “court cluster” cases following the 2018 general election. Under his leadership, the AGC brought the majority of the complex, multi-billion-ringgit charges against former Umno leaders, including Najib, Zahid, and Musa.

No final convictions were recorded during this period, as most cases were still in their pre-trial or early hearing stages. The one notable case was Lim's 2016 bungalow case, where he was granted a DAA (full acquittal) on 3 September 2018 — not as a result of a trial, but because the prosecution applied to withdraw the charges and requested a DNAA. The defence pushed for a full acquittal and the High Court judge agreed.

Idrus Harun

6 March 2020 – 6 September 2023

Idrus' tenure saw the highest volume of major trial resolutions.

Major convictions: In August 2022, the Federal Court upheld Najib's conviction and sentence in the SRC International case — the first time a former prime minister had been found guilty and imprisoned. Isa — convicted of receiving bribes for the purchase of Merdeka Palace Hotel — was also found guilty in the High Court in February 2021.

DAAs: This same period saw a striking pattern of DAAs following prosecution withdrawals. Several high-profile figures received full discharges after the prosecution withdrew charges following “Letters of Representation” submitted by the defence. Musa received a DAA in June 2020 after the prosecution withdrew all 46 charges. Others who received DAAs included former Kota Tinggi MP Noor Ehsanuddin (September 2021), Ahmad Maslan (September 2021), Abdul Azeez (December 2022), and Shahrir (January 2023).

DNAAs: DNAAs were also granted to Tengku Adnan (MACC case) in December 2020 and Nasharudin (partial DNAA for 16 charges) in September 2020. Most notably, just days before Idrus left office in September 2023, the prosecution withdrew all 47 charges in Zahid's Yayasan Akalbudi case — at a stage where the court had found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case — and applied for DNAA.

Acquittals by court: In March 2023, Najib and Arul Kanda were acquitted in the 1MDB audit tampering case after the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.

Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh

6 September 2023 – 11 November 2024

Terrirudin's tenure was marked largely by appeals and their outcomes, rather than new trials.

Convictions: Syed Saddiq was convicted and sentenced in the High Court in November 2023, though that conviction was later overturned on appeal.

Finalised acquittals: The acquittal of Najib and Arul in the 1MDB audit tampering case became final in September 2023, after the prosecution failed to meet filing deadlines and the appeal was thrown out by the court.

Overturned acquittals: In Muhyiddin's Jana Wibawa case, the High Court initially struck out the charges on technical grounds — the defence successfully argued that the charges were defectively drafted. The prosecution appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed it. In February 2024, the court reinstated the charges, meaning the case will now proceed to trial.

Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar

12 November 2024 – present

Under the current AG, the most visible pattern has been the closing out of cases that have been stalled for years — through discharges, appeal withdrawals, and “No Further Action” (NFA) classifications.

DNAAs by the court for delayed trials: Najib was granted DNAAs in both the Ipic case (November 2024) and the SRC 2 case (June 2025). In both instances, the High Court cited “inordinate delay” and prosecution non-compliance as grounds for granting the DNAAs.

Appeal withdrawals: In December 2024, the prosecution withdrew its appeal in the Zahid VLN case, finalising his acquittal in that matter.

NFA: On 8 January 2026, the AGC announced Zahid's 47 Yayasan Akalbudi charges (which had been granted DNAA) as NFA, citing insufficient evidence. This prompted Zahid's defence to immediately file an application for full acquittal (DAA). The prosecution indicated no objection to this application, which is set to be decided on 14 May 2026.

Acquittals following death: Two defendants passed away before their cases concluded. DAAs were recorded for Daim (November 2024) and Bung (January 2026) following their deaths.

Upheld convictions: In December 2025, Najib was convicted by the High Court in the 1MDB-Tanore trial — receiving a fine of RM11.38 billion, the largest ever handed down in a Malaysian court. In February 2026, Isa's fate was sealed when the Federal Court upheld his conviction in the bribery charges.

Part 4

What about the laws used?

These high-profile corruption cases use a specific range of laws from the Penal Code, the MACC Act 2009, and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

The relationship between the laws and the eventual case outcomes reveals a complex legal landscape where the choice of statute often dictates the trial's complexity, the likelihood of a settlement, and the potential for a full acquittal.

The chart below shows the total number of cases tied to each statutory provision used across this dataset. The most heavily used provisions — AMLATFPUAA S4(1) and the MACC Act's bribery and abuse-of-power sections — appear most frequently.

Cases by Statutes

Each bar is one statutory provision; bar length shows total case count.

AMLA S4(1)Money Laundering

(14)

MACC S16Accepting Gratification

(11)

MACC S23Abuse of Power

(8)

PC S409Criminal Breach of Trust

(6)

PC S165Accepting Valuable Things

(4)

MACC S28Abetment

(4)

MACC S17(a)Gratification by Agent

(3)

PC S109Abetment

(2)

PC S403Dishonest Misappropriation

(2)

MACC S36Asset Declaration / Notice

(2)

PC S406Punishment for CBT

(1)

PC S34Common Intention

(1)

AMLA S32Providing False Information

(1)

AMLA S87Offence by Body Corporate

(1)

ACA1997 S11Gratification by Agent

(1)

The DAAs for both Daim Zainuddin and Bung Moktar Radin are not included as they were given after their deaths.

Criminal Breach of Trust

Penal Code S409 · Max penalty: 20 years + whipping

Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) under Section 409 of the Penal Code is one of the most serious charges among the 33 cases, carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and mandatory whipping. Because these charges require the prosecution to prove that the accused was entrusted with — and exercised dominion over — property, and then dishonestly misappropriated it, they often involve the most complex financial paper trails.

In Najib's RM6.6 billion Ipic case — involving six CBT charges — the High Court granted a DNAA in November 2024 after the trial stalled for six years, citing the prosecution's persistent failure to hand over classified documents as required under the law.

In Zahid's Yayasan Akalbudi case, the prosecution applied for a DNAA on all 47 charges (spanning CBT, corruption, and money laundering) in 2023, citing the need for further investigations. That DNAA was subsequently classified as NFA in January 2026, followed by an application for DAA, effectively closing the case permanently.

CBT under Section 409 remains central to some of the most significant outcomes in Malaysian high-profile prosecutions. It constituted the core of Najib's SRC International conviction, where he was found guilty on three counts of CBT involving RM42 million — charges that survived all levels to the Federal Court.

Accepting a Valuable Thing

Penal Code S165 · Max penalty: 2 years

Section 165 targets public servants who obtain “valuable things” without adequate consideration from persons connected to their official duties. Compared to the 20-year maximum for corruption under the MACC Act, it carries a significantly lower maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Tengku Adnan was first convicted under Section 165 for accepting bribes. The conviction was subsequently overturned in the Court of Appeal. Noor Ehsanuddin was granted a DAA on all 29 charges — some of which were framed under Section 165 — after the prosecution withdrew the case mid-trial, citing new evidence that the sums had been repaid.

Lim Guan Eng received a DAA in 2018 on his bungalow-related charges (which included a Section 165 count) when the prosecution opted not to proceed.

Zahid saw all seven charges under Section 165, along with 33 counts of graft, in his VLN case end in acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case. The prosecution initially appealed in 2022 against the decision; however, the appeal was withdrawn by Dusuki in December 2024.

Bribery & Abuse of Power

MACC Act 2009 SSS 16, 17, 23 · Max penalty: 20 years + fine

Sections 16, 17, and 23 of the MACC Act are the primary tools used for direct bribery and abuse of power.

Section 23 (abuse of power) is often used against top-tier leaders for using their official position for gratification. While it formed part of Najib's SRC conviction, it also resulted in a full acquittal for Rozman after the court found the prosecution failed to prove a case.

Muhyiddin's charges under this section illustrate the technical scrutiny required: the High Court struck them out due to an offence not being disclosed and insufficient particulars in the charge sheet, before the Court of Appeal unanimously reinstated the charges.

Sections 16 & 17 (bribery) are the charges most frequently taken to full trial. Isa was convicted on nine counts of bribery under Section 16(a)(A), while Abdul Azeez — charged under the same section in relation to a road project in Perak and Kedah — was fully acquitted after the prosecution withdrew the charges.

Money Laundering (AMLATFPUAA)

AMLA 2001 SS4(1) · Max penalty: 15 years + fine

Section 4(1) of the AMLATFPUAA is almost always paired with MACC or Penal Code charges, targeting the movement and concealment of proceeds from those primary offences. Its outcomes follow two distinct patterns.

The domino effect: When primary corruption charges are withdrawn or collapse, AMLATFPUAA charges rarely survive independently. In Musa's case, all 46 charges — 30 corruption counts and 16 money laundering counts — were withdrawn simultaneously when the prosecution determined the case was no longer tenable, citing unavailable witnesses, inaccessible documentary evidence from Hong Kong banks, and a prior AG decision that undermined the prosecution's foundation.

In Shahrir's case, the prosecution abandoned his money laundering charge mid-trial after its own investigating officer admitted under cross-examination that the charge had been filed without a thorough investigation.

The compound as exit ramp: AMLATFPUAA uniquely allows the AG to offer a financial settlement in lieu of prosecution. Ahmad Maslan was acquitted after paying a RM1.1 million compound for failing to declare to the Inland Revenue Board RM2 million he received from Najib, with the prosecution confirming he could never be charged for the same offence again. The compound mechanism functioned less as accountability and more as a structured form of closure — financial, final, and unreviewable.

Criminal Breach of Trust

Penal Code S409

Core focus: Criminal breach of trust

Max sentence:20 yrs + whipping

Often leads to DNAA due to trial length and complexity.

Accepting Valuable Things

Penal Code S165

Core focus: Receiving valuable things

Max sentence:2 yrs

High frequency of DAA at trial or on appeal.

Abuse of Power

MACC Act S23

Core focus: Abuse of power

Max sentence:20 yrs + fine

Mixed; involves heavy legal battles over charge “defects”.

Money Laundering

AMLATFPUAA S4(1)

Core focus: Money laundering

Max sentence:15 yrs + fine

Often resolved via compound or withdrawn alongside primary charges.

Part 5

Why these cases are hard to follow

One reason these high-profile corruption cases are difficult for the public to track is because they rarely move in a straight line. Between the first charge and the final outcome, a case can twist through years of hearings, appeals, withdrawals, and procedural decisions.

The Procedural Obstacle Course

It is a multi-year marathon consisting of three distinct phases, each with its own potential for delay:

The Pre-Trial Phase: This includes arrests, bail hearings, and “interlocutory” disputes over document disclosure or the transfer of cases between courts.

The Trial Phase: The prosecution must establish a prima facie case (a case strong enough to require a defence). If they fail here, the accused is acquitted without even having to testify.

The Appellate Phase: Even a “final” judgment at trial is rarely the end. Both convictions and acquittals can be appealed through the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, a process that can add several years to the timeline.

Bridging the Information Gap

The longer a case stretches — surviving changes in government, shifting AGs, and rotating judges — the harder it becomes for the public to see the “big picture”.

Taken individually, each development is newsworthy. Taken together, however, they can obscure as much as they reveal — producing a fragmented public record in which individual moments are well-reported but the overall pattern is harder to see.

To address this, Projek SAMA has compiled a verified database of these 33 cases, moving beyond headlines to provide a factual record of significant court developments. To ensure this data is truly accessible, we have integrated an AI-powered assistant that allows you to cut through the legal jargon. Instead of navigating complex spreadsheets, you can ask questions directly — extracting the facts of Malaysia's most significant corruption trials through simple, conversational language.

Ending Malaysia's “Dua Darjat”

These 33 cases tell different stories on the surface. At their core, they tell one — that in Malaysia, the outcomes of corruption prosecutions are shaped by more than the law alone. They are also shaped by prosecutorial discretion, political timing, and procedural complexity.

The law itself is not the problem. Malaysia has anti-corruption laws. The courts have, in several instances, shown they are capable of convicting even the most powerful. What has failed is the chain of decisions that happens before and around the cases — whether to charge, to continue, to appeal, to withdraw. Those decisions belong to the AG's office, and they are vulnerable to the politics of the moment.

This matters because each of those decisions is, in practice, irreversible. A case withdrawn is a case closed. There will be no verdict, no accountability.

Public trust in the justice system is not built by a landmark conviction alone. It is built, consistently, on the sense that the law means the same thing for everyone, regardless of who is in power.

Once those senses begin to slip, trust does not simply weaken; it hardens into something more corrosive — into “dua darjat”, a belief that there has always been one law for the powerful, and another for everyone else. A democracy can survive bad politicians. It is much harder to survive a public that has stopped believing that the institutions work at all.

This is precisely what Projek SAMA's latest report argues. Separating the AG and the public prosecutor roles is necessary, but not enough — the right safeguards must come with it.

The report recommends that the new public prosecutor be appointed through a process that is open and above reproach. Once in office, they must follow a clear, publicly available code of conduct and prosecutorial guidelines covering when to charge and when to withdraw — and must explain their decisions publicly. At the end of the day, they must be accountable to Parliament. Read the report here.

Explore the Data

Browse the case database, ask the AI assistant, or read about how this analysis was built.

Data compiled by Projek SAMA

Published on Malaysiakini

Methodology

Scope of the dataset.

The dataset is confined to cases involving individuals who currently serve or have previously served as elected representatives in Malaysia at the state or federal level — i.e. members of Parliament (MPs) or members of a state legislative assembly. This definition excludes appointed members of the Dewan Negara (Senate), political party leaders who have never held elected office, and unelected public officials.

The dataset is restricted to corruption, criminal breach of trust (CBT), and money laundering cases (C-C-M), with prosecutions under the MACC Act 2009, the Penal Code, the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

Temporal scope.

This dataset tracks C-C-M charges instituted or continued after GE14, between 10 May 2018 and 30 April 2026. While the primary focus is on post-2018 charges, the dataset includes the case of former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng (filed in 2016) regarding a house purchase with discount, as the proceedings continued through the 2018 transition before the subsequent withdrawal of charges while he was the finance minister.

Case classification & data handling.

To ensure statistical accuracy, each case is assigned a single outcome category. Where a case involves multiple trial stages, the data reflects the most recent finalised status as of the reporting cutoff (i.e. 30 April 2026).

The case of Syed Saddiq is categorised as a “First Trial Conviction” because this category specifically includes cases where a trial court conviction has been recorded but a final appeal (in this instance, to the Federal Court) is still pending.
For the case of Nasharudin, a DNAA is recorded for the 16 out of 33 CBT charges addressed on 22 September 2020. The remaining charges are categorised as “unconfirmed” due to a lack of public updates.
Two cases involving Daim and Bung are excluded from all case-outcome statistics, as their DAAs were procedural results recorded only after their passing.
The 2019 interim DNAA for Najib (SRC 2) is removed from the analysis to reflect the case's trajectory accurately; only the final DNAA granted in 2025 is counted. The initial DNAA for Abdul Azeez is omitted from the counts to avoid double-counting his eventual finalised DAA caused by prosecutorial conduct.
The case of Ismail Sabri is excluded from the “ongoing” trials category because, although he is currently under MACC investigation, no formal criminal charges have been filed in court.
The case of Lan is removed from the case-outcomes analysis because his current legal situation has not been updated since he was re-charged in March 2022.

Sources.

Initial data collection relied on secondary sources such as media reports from The Edge, Malaysiakini, The Malay Mail, and others. Subsequently, information was verified against primary legal documents — court judgments and reports — accessed through LexisNexis and eLaw.my. However, verification via written judgments was limited to cases that reached disposal at the prima facie stage or concluded at trial or appeal, reflecting the public availability of such records.

Dates of court proceedings, including when charges were filed, were initially obtained from media reports and subsequently verified by searching the relevant case lists on the ecourtservices.kehakiman.gov.my website. Case numbers were also obtained by accessing the relevant cause list.

Information regarding case outcomes and their underlying rationale was also gathered from official statements issued by the AGC and MACC, as seen in the cases of Musa, Zahid's Yayasan Akalbudi, and Ehsanuddin.

Identification was also made through existing literature, including published books. For instance, the cases of Nasharudin and Lan were sourced from State of Corruption: Power, Politics, and Policies in Malaysia, authored and published by The Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4), and Misgovernance: Grand Corruption in Malaysia by Edmund Terence Gomez.

Case outcome categorisation and definitions.

Ongoing — trial yet to conclude; verdict pending.
First trial conviction — convicted at trial court; appeal ongoing.
Final conviction — conviction upheld through all appeal stages.
DAA after full trial / all appeals — court granted Discharge Amounting to Acquittal after evidence fully heard, or after prosecution failed prima facie at trial, or after all appeal stages.
DAA due to prosecutorial conduct — DAA resulting from prosecution's withdrawal of charges (Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code) or withdrawal/failure at appeal stage.
DNAA — discharge not amounting to acquittal; may still be re-charged. Includes court-initiated DNAAs due to delay, and cases classified as No Further Action (NFA) but pending acquittal.
DAA due to death — charges withdrawn and DAA granted following death of the accused (standard procedure).
Unknown status — status unclear due to lack of recent updates.

Attribution and image credits.

Prime minister portraits. Dr Mahathir Mohamad photo by kremlin.ru (CC BY 4.0). Muhyiddin Yassin photo by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak via Flickr (CC BY 2.0). Ismail Sabri Yaakob photo by BPMI Setpres / Laily Rachev (public domain). Anwar Ibrahim photo by Laily Rachev (public domain). All sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Attorney-general portraits. Tommy Thomas image courtesy of Politikus (Sinar Project, Creative Commons). Idrus Harun photo courtesy of US Embassy KL (public domain). Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh photo by Embassy of Japan in Malaysia (CC BY 4.0). Dusuki Mokhtar photo courtesy of Malaysiakini.
Data and analysis. Compiled and reviewed by Projek SAMA. Errors are the analysts' own.

How to contribute / report a correction.

To submit a correction or contribute to the Prosecutorial Accountability Watch (PAW) Database, please contact [email protected].

Share this story

Credits

Project coordinator & EditorKuek Ser Kuang Keng
Database curator & AnalystFarah Izzah Haron
WriterJernell Tan
Web developer & DesignerThibi
Sub-editorBasil Foo