• Today: August 31, 2026

Two acquitted in BND10,000 counterfeit note case

Two men charged with using a counterfeit BND10,000 note were acquitted and discharged by the Intermediate Court on Saturday after the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew, or had reason to believe, that the note was counterfeit.

The defendants, Firmansyah Zamrulian and Zacky Umar, were represented by Brandon Chin and Lim Li Chyi of Yusof Halim & Partners, while Deputy Public Prosecutor Nurul Fitri Kiprawi appeared for the prosecution.

Intermediate Court Judge Pengiran Hajah Norismayanti binti Pengiran Haji Ismail delivered the judgment on Saturday in Public Prosecutor v Firmansyah Zamrulian and Zacky Umar, ICCT No 5 of 2025. The charge was brought under Section 489B of the Penal Code, read with Section 34 relating to common intention.

The case concerned a counterfeit BND10,000 note which was presented at Zamada Money Changer at Brunei International Airport on October 10, 2024 for exchange into Malaysian Ringgit.

It was not disputed that the note was counterfeit or that it had been presented for exchange. The central issue was whether the prosecution could prove that the defendants knew, or had reason to believe, that it was counterfeit at the time.

In acquitting the defendants, the Court accepted significant aspects of the submissions advanced by the defence.

The Court found that the counterfeit note was sufficiently sophisticated that its defects were not readily detectable by an ordinary member of the public. Evidence from a Brunei Darussalam Central Bank currency expert showed that proper examination required specialised equipment, comparison with a genuine BND10,000 note and expert training.

The Court observed that the “reason to believe” test did not require an ordinary person to possess the specialised knowledge of a trained currency examiner. It consequently found that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the first defendant had reason to believe the note was counterfeit.

The Court also rejected the prosecution’s contention that the first defendant had been wilfully blind to the possibility that the note was counterfeit.

Evidence showed that he had sought verification of the note, including obtaining photographs of it under ultraviolet light, and subsequently made attempts to exchange it through money changers. The Court held that such conduct was difficult to reconcile with a deliberate attempt to avoid discovering that the note was counterfeit.

The Judge noted that the investigating officer had agreed during cross-examination that the first defendant’s account had remained consistent from the time of his arrest, was supported by forensic material obtained from his mobile phone, and that it was not unreasonable for him to have believed the note was genuine after seeing the ultraviolet photographs.

The Court found the prosecution’s case against the second defendant to be even weaker.

Among other matters, his niece had telephoned the Brunei money changer in advance to inquire about exchanging the money. The Court accepted the defence submission that such conduct was difficult to reconcile with guilty knowledge, observing that someone knowingly attempting to pass counterfeit currency would ordinarily have little reason to announce the proposed transaction beforehand to the institution he intended to deceive.

The investigating officer also made several important concessions under cross-examination. The judgment recorded that a fuller forensic examination of the defendants’ phones revealed no evidence that either defendant had purchased counterfeit currency or had otherwise been involved in dealing with counterfeit money.

The investigating officer further agreed that nothing obtained from two separate telephone extractions contradicted the defendants’ account and that, apart from the fact that the note itself was counterfeit, there was no evidence showing that either defendant knew it was counterfeit at the material time.

The Court additionally expressed concern over the completeness of the investigation.

The person who had allegedly given the BND10,000 note to the first defendant in Indonesia was not interviewed despite investigators having his name, identification details and telephone number. Statements were also not obtained from Malaysian money changers which had earlier declined to exchange the note.

The Judge held that these were available lines of inquiry which could have been pursued, and that gaps resulting from the incomplete investigation had to be resolved in favour of the defendants.

Although both defendants elected to remain silent after being called upon to enter their defence, the Court declined the prosecution’s request to draw an adverse inference against them. The Court held that silence could not be used to fill evidential gaps left by the prosecution where the prosecution’s own witnesses had already supported important parts of the defendants’ explanation.

The charge based on common intention under Section 34 also failed. The Court found that, as neither defendant had been proved to know or have reason to believe that the note was counterfeit, there was no criminal common intention upon which liability under Section 34 could be founded.

Concluding that the required mental element had not been established, the Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted and discharged both defendants.

 

SOURCE/AUTHOR : BORNEO BULLETIN/ LYNA MOHAMAD

Venues

BSB

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

Leave a Comment

Total visitors: 3,720,794 | Today's visitors: 20,408
Updated: 20:31:03