AGC says insufficient evidence to charge anyone in latest probe into Teoh Beng Hock's death
In a statement, the AGC said it had thoroughly reviewed and examined the investigation papers submitted but found insufficient evidence to support charges against any individuals.
'Upon thorough evaluation of all the evidence, it was found that there is insufficient evidence to prove any offence against any individual under the law.
'Therefore, the instruction given is for no further action to be taken in relation to this investigation paper,' the AGC said.
The announcement has drawn criticism from Teoh's family and their lawyer, Ramkarpal Singh, who urged the AGC to clarify its decision.
Teoh Beng Hock who was a political aide to a Selangor state executive councillor, was found dead on July 16, 2009, after falling from the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam following an overnight interrogation by MACC officers. — Picture by Sayuti Zainudin
Ramkarpal had earlier questioned whether the AGC's conclusion meant there was no evidence of wrongdoing, despite a 2014 Court of Appeal ruling implicating Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers as potential suspects.
Teoh, who was a political aide to a Selangor state executive councillor, was found dead on July 16, 2009, after falling from the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam following an overnight interrogation by MACC officers.
An inquest into his death returned an open verdict, but the 2014 Court of Appeal decision stated that Teoh's death was caused by the actions of 'one or more unknown persons,' including MACC officials.
Teoh's sister, Teoh Lee Lan, voiced her family's disappointment with the outcome of the latest investigation.
After Pakatan Harapan's 2018 electoral victory, the Cabinet agreed to reopen the case, and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim promised to conclude investigations within two years.
Two prior investigations in 2011 and 2015 were also classified as NFA. In 2023, the High Court ordered the police to complete the delayed investigation. However, with the case now marked as NFA again, Teoh's family maintains their quest for answers remains unresolved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Express
an hour ago
- Daily Express
‘Datuk' held over Pahang award
Published on: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 Published on: Tue, Jul 22, 2025 Text Size: Karunanithy confirmed the arrest and said the suspect was released on bail. Kota Kinabalu: A businessman with the title 'Datuk' has been arrested by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for allegedly soliciting RM6,000 from an individual to obtain a Pahang state award. The suspect, in his 40s, was arrested at noon Monday when he appeared at the Sabah MACC Office here to give a statement. According to a source, the suspect is believed to have offered to help the complainant obtain the title of Datuk from Pahang in 2023, even though he did not have the authority to do so. 'The suspect is believed to have dishonestly induced the complainant to transfer RM6,000 purportedly for the purchase of ceremonial clothing accessories needed to obtain the award,' he said. Sabah MACC Director Datuk S Karunanithy confirmed the arrest and said the suspect was released on bail. He said the suspect is scheduled to be charged at the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court this Thursday (July 24) under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act 2009. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
KL firm to pay RM6,799 for failing to honour warranty period
Lee says the KL-based computer company failed to honour the warranty on the graphics processing unit bought by him. A MAN who bought a used graphics processing unit (GPU) from a third-party reseller has successfully filed a claim with the Johor Consumer Claims Tribunal after a company in Kuala Lumpur refused to honour the product's warranty. Lee Jia Chuin, 35, said he purchased the used GPU, also known as graphics card, for RM4,000 in cash from a seller in Taman Johor Jaya, Johor Baru, in October last year. He said the receipt given to him was the original receipt issued, to the first buyer, by a company dealing in computer peripherals and software, based at Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. 'Although I paid RM4,000 to the seller, the company did not issue any receipt or bill for that amount. 'Instead, I was given a receipt dated May 2022, with the price of RM6,799 as the amount,' he said when met outside the tribunal at Menara Ansar in Johor Baru. A GPU takes the burden of processing visual data from the CPU, allowing for smoother and faster rendering of graphics, especially in games and other graphically demanding applications. It typically includes memory chips, a processor core, video output connectors and a cooling system. Lee said the GPU carried a three-year warranty from the date of the original purchase in May 2022. On Feb 15, one of its three cooling fans malfunctioned. 'This led to reduced performance or, in other words, it slowed down and affected work,' he said. Lee returned the GPU to the reseller, who then forwarded it to the Kuala Lumpur-based company for repair, on March 4. 'The GPU was still under warranty and only expired in April 2025, but the company in Kuala Lumpur refused to fix the problems, citing that I bought it from a reseller,' Lee said. He claimed the company had deliberately delayed repairs even though it was aware the product was still under warranty. 'Another reason given by the company was that the serial numbers of the GPU did not tally with the original receipt,' he said, although he maintained that the serial numbers did match. Tribunal president Hafez Zalkapli ordered the company to refund RM6,799 to the claimant within two weeks. Those seeking tribunal assistance can call 07-227 1755 or 07-227 1766, or visit the Johor Tribunal office at Level 17, Menara Ansar, Jalan Trus, Johor Baru.
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Simplified: How judges are selected in Malaysia vs UK, Australia, Singapore, India
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Amid recent controversy over the selection of new top-ranking judges in Malaysia, the government has launched a new study to compare how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India, and Singapore. Here's a simplified comparison of how judges are selected and appointed in these five Commonwealth countries, some of which have an independent body called a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Malaysia (Has JAC) Malaysia has a nine-member JAC chaired by the Chief Justice, with the other members being the other top three judges, and five members appointed by the prime minister (a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons). There is a two-step process now, namely selection and then appointment: Step 1: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) filters and selects candidates based on merit, then recommends names to the prime minister. (Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009). Note: Under the JAC Act, the PM can ask the JAC for two alternative names (for vacancies for the top four judges, Federal Court and Court of Appeal). Under the same law, the PM does not need to give any reason for rejecting the names, and there is no limit on how many times the PM can ask for other names. Step 2: After accepting JAC's recommendations, the prime minister submits the names to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Agong then appoints judges based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers (Federal Constitution's Article 122B). The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. The JAC also sends candidates' names for background checks by five agencies: the police, the anti-corruption body, the companies commission, the insolvency department, and the tax authority. The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. — Picture by Raymond Manuel UK (Has JACs) After the UK's constitutional reforms in 2005, there are now three bodies involved in selecting and recommending potential judges (the JAC for England and Wales; Northern Ireland's JAC and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland). Looking specifically at England and Wales, the 15-member JAC is chaired by a layperson, with six judicial members, two professional members, five laypersons, and one non-legally qualified judicial member. The JAC's role is to select candidates on merit, having good character, and to encourage diversity in the range of available candidates. The JAC has a detailed list of items that a candidate has to declare when applying to be a judge (such as criminal convictions, traffic offences, being bankrupt, tax issues) to assess if they are of 'good character', and will also carry out character checks with professional regulatory bodies and the authorities such as for insolvency and tax. The JAC selects judges up to the High Court level, while the JAC would also be part of independent selection panels to select higher-ranking judges or judges at the higher courts. Generally, the Lord Chancellor (who is a Cabinet minister) may accept the JAC's recommendations, and has limited powers to reject or ask for reconsideration of recommended candidates. Generally, the King will appoint judges on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, based on the recommendation by the JAC or an independent selection panel. For certain positions such as Supreme Court judges, the Lord Chancellor's recommendation — based on the panel's recommendation — would go to the prime minister, and the prime minister would advise the King on the appointment. Australia (No JAC) Under Australia's Constitution, the Governor-General 'in Council' appoints judges. (The Governor-General is the head of state, a role that is played by the Agong in Malaysia and the King in the UK.) This means that the Governor-General appoints judges on the advice of the prime minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General (who is part of Cabinet) makes recommendations to the Australian government on who should be appointed as judges. For the appointment of High Court judges, the federal Attorney-General is required by law to consult with the attorney-general of the states in Australia. The Attorney-General's website states that the Australian government's process for appointing judges 'may include' advertising, consulting with the legal professional community to request nominations, and getting advisory panels to assess candidates and give recommendations to the Attorney-General. The website also lists the personal and professional qualities that a judge should have, including outstanding legal expertise; excellent written communication skills; temperament, integrity, impartiality, tact and courtesy. Singapore (No JAC) Under Singapore's constitution, the President appoints judges on the prime minister's advice, if he agrees with the prime minister's advice. Before giving his advice to the President, Singapore's prime minister 'must consult' the Chief Justice on appointments of judges (except for the appointment of the Chief Justice). India (Had JAC for a few months) After amending its Constitution and creating a new law in 2014, India introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — which had the duty of recommending individuals 'of ability and integrity' for the President to appoint as judges. The NJAC was meant to be a six-member panel, chaired by the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the minister in charge of law and justice, two eminent persons. (A three-member committee comprising the CJ, the prime minister, the Opposition Leader would nominate the NJAC's two eminent persons, with one of the eminent persons required to be a woman or from a minority or marginalised group.) But just months after the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act came into effect in April 2015, India's highest court, the Supreme Court, in October 2015 struck down both laws as unconstitutional. India then returned to using its existing 'collegium' system, which is where a group of senior judges select and recommend candidates for the President to appoint. For example, to appoint new Supreme Court judges, there would be a collegium of five judges (the Chief Justice and the four most senior Supreme Court judges), who would give their recommended names via the Chief Justice to India's government. The Chief Justice would give the recommendation to the law minister, who would then forward the recommendation to the prime minister to advise the President on the appointment of the new judges. To JAC or not? Like Malaysia, the four other countries we are looking at are members of the 56-member Commonwealth. In the UK-based Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's 2015 report on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, it was found that it is now 'uncommon' for only the executive branch of government to be responsible for appointing judges. At that time, the report found that 18.7 per cent (nine out of 48 independent Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Singapore) was where the executive was solely responsible for judicial appointments, while 81.3 per cent (39 out of 48 such as India, Malaysia, UK) had a JAC. This figure will now be 38 out of 48 as India has scrapped its JAC, but the 2015 report had noted that a number of countries, which established JACs in relatively quick succession (including the UK, the Maldives, Pakistan and Malaysia) after 2003 showed a 'clear trend' favouring JACs. Recommended reading:
