Page:Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.pdf/53

Rh it is proved that such person has accepted or agreed to accept, or obtained or attempted to obtain any gratification, such person shall be presumed to have done so as a motive or reward for the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code it is proved that such person has accepted or attempted to obtain any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which such person knows to be inadequate, such person shall be presumed to have done so with such knowledge as to the circumstances as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(4) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under paragraph 137(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1967, it is proved that any officer of customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling has accepted, agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any bribe, gratuity, recompense, or reward, such officer or person shall be presumed to have done so for the neglect or non-performance of his duty as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

Evidence of corroboration

51. In any proceedings against any person for an offence under this Act, it may be proved that at or about the time of the alleged offence, or at any time thereafter, the accused, or any relative or associate of his—
 * (a) held any property for which he, or his relative or associate, as the case may be, is unable to give a satisfactory account as to how he came into its ownership, possession, custody or control; or
 * (b) had entered into any dealing for the acquisition of any property and he is unable to satisfactorily account for the consideration for which it is to be acquired,

and the evidence in relation thereto shall be presumed to corroborate any evidence relating to the commission of the offence.