INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OFJUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
Norfarisah Mohd Harris *I. CASE STUDY
PP vs Ramzidah binti Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Kol (R) Hj Abd Rahman (1st Defendant)
and Haji Nabil Daraina bin Pehin Udana Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Hj
Awang Badaruddin (2nd Defendant)o The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Brunei Darussalam received informationthat the Honourable Senior Registrar, High Court Ramzidah binti PDKD Hj AbdulRahman, who is also the Official Receiver, committed an act contrary to Section 12(maintains a standard of living or in control of assets which are not commensuratewith official emoluments), Section 12 A (misconduct of public office) and Chapter6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 131) and was also suspected ofcommitting other offences under the Penal Code (Chapter 22) and other related laws.
o Ramzidah, a former magistrate, was one of the few Court-appointed Official
Receivers for bankruptcy, and in such capacity she oversaw payments into theCourt’s trust accounts for creditors (also referred to as “Official Receiver accounts”).
During the course of her employment in this role, she removed funds from 255
Judgment Debtors’ accounts for personal use in the amount of BND15,750,292.24.
o Haji Nabil, Ramzidah’s husband and a former prosecutor before becoming a judge,
was not involved in the predicate offending; however, he was involved inlaundering of the proceeds of Ramzidah’s offending. They were both charged withpossession of unexplained wealth under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter131), but those charges were stayed until the completion of the trial. The stay has
since been lifted and the prosecutors are currently still deliberating on whether toproceed with these charges.
A. Initial Detectiono The ACB received information on 28 December 2017 which indicated thatRamzidah and Nabil were living lavishly in a manner that exceeded their expected
income. The Complaints Evaluation Committee (CEC) assessed this information on
30 December 2017 and investigation commenced on the same day.
o Information from the intelligence-gathering phase that included an analysis of thefinancial statements was sufficient for ACB to determine that there was reason tocommence a full-blown investigation, starting with the issuance of freeze orders on
the two suspects’ bank accounts in January 2018, which amounted toBND681,496.45 and GBP5,050.13.
*Senior Special Investigator, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Brunei Darussalam.

- 37 - 37 -o A separate money-laundering investigation into this case was opened on 5 March2018.
o The ACB utilized a multi-disciplinary investigation team to investigate thiscomplex case. The team consisted of investigation officers from different fields orspecialization such as intelligence, financial investigation, forensic investigation
and a designated investigator who would carry out investigation under thePrevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 131) or other prescribed offences. This teamworked together to identify proceeds of crime to plan for seizure, asset management
and confiscation.
B. Funds Tracing: Internationalo From the initial analysis of their financial details, it was determined that not all
funds that were embezzled made their way into the two magistrates’ accounts. Anycash withdrawn from the Official Receiver accounts was mostly deposited toRamzidah’s and Nabil’s account. The remainder that was not deposited was later
found to have been used to purchase luxury items within the country or overseas.
Moreover, those funds that were deposited to the Ramzidah’s and Nabil’s personalaccounts eventually also made their way overseas through bank telegraphictransfers.
o Open-source information indicated that Ramzidah, Nabil and their children had asignificant presence in the United Kingdom. Their social media platforms,
including Instagram, indicated that they were living at a residence in the UK, anddrove their own vehicles. The authorities obtained further information to assess any
flow of funds to the UK as well.
a. Wire transfers were identified amounting to GBP875,581.02 and BND1.3
million from their accounts in Brunei to their accounts in the UK that could
support their purported lavish expenses in the UK, and this information wasshared with the ACB.
b. Obtained confirmation from the UK that all the purported residences andvehicles were rentals and not owned outright by either Ramzidah or Nabil.
c. Further to this, the ACB also sought informal assistance from the Briberyand Corruption Intelligence Unit (BCIU) of the National Crime Agency(NCA) of the UK. The NCA conducted intelligence gathering on bankaccounts and assets owned by Ramzidah and Nabil in the UK and thefindings were then used to substantiate the request subsequently madethrough formal Mutual Legal Assistance channels.
C. Operation
The ACB conducted operations in three phases:
a. Phase I (to locate and identify their properties)
Conducted search at the Judiciary office- 38 - 38 -Search was conducted to collect evidence relating to the judgment
debtors such as bank passbook, files on the dividend pay-out, cash
and other supporting evidence to support the criminal breach of trustoffences.
Conducted search at their residence
Search at their residence was conducted to collect evidence relating
to the judgment debtors and also to collect evidence on the lavish
lifestyle and any other supporting evidence on the proceed of crimes.
The assets found during the search were secured and sealed. This
will ensure that the assets are not removed or destroyed.

Conducted search at their registered addressFurther search was conducted at their registered address.
Preliminary investigation revealed that Ramzidah and her children
had a registered address at her parents’ house. In order for thoroughinvestigation the parents’ house was searched for any evidence
pertaining to proceeds of crimes or assets. Assets found were seized
and some were sealed to prevent removal or being destroyed.

Secured all assets
All assets found during the preliminary investigation and searchwere seized or sealed to ensure that the assets are not disposed. For
example, regarding the cars. ACB notified the relevant authority toprevent any sales or transfer of ownership.

Froze all local banks accounts
All bank accounts established during the preliminary investigationand search were frozen. Relevant banks issued Notice Orders signedby the Public Prosecutor.

b. Phase II (to seize their properties)
Re-searched their residence and registered address
Searches were conducted at their residence for the purpose of seizing
all the cars, luxury items such as handbags and watches as theinvestigation revealed that items were acquired using proceeds ofcrime. Thorough search was conducted to ensure no secret area tohide the cash withdrawn from the official receiver bank accounts.

Seized all assets e.g., cars, luxury items- 39 - 39 -All assets were seized from both their residence. The assets werethen kept at a secure location for safekeeping. Assets are maintainedfor confiscation.
c. Phase III (to locate and seize the remaining properties)
Seized cars from parents’ house, car agents and parking lot
All assets were seized from their parents’ house, car agents and also
hotel parking lot. The assets were then kept at a secure location forsafekeeping. Assets are maintained for confiscation.

Investigation continues, calling for witness and gathering evidence to be tendered incourt. ACB has called witnesses for statement to support the evidence of Criminal Breachof Trust, Prevention of Corruption Act and Money Laundering offences. During theinvestigation ACB has called the following:








Judiciary officers and personnel- to support the roles and responsibility ofRamzidah and the procedures in handling official receiver bank accounts.
256 judgment debtors – to support that there was no instruction to Ramzidah
for withdrawing money from their official receiver accounts.
Creditors – to support that they have not received payments to settle thedebts.
Bank personnel – to support the withdrawal made from Official Receiveraccounts by Ramzidah and the cash denomination she received.
Bank personnel – to support the cash deposits and telegraphic transfers toUnited Kingdom.
Expert Witness – ACB has documentation to support evidence thatRamzidah withdrew the cash withdrawal from the banks.
CCTV – to support the CCTV footage at the banks – during withdrawal andCash deposits using the cash deposit machine.
Car sales agents – to support the cash payments for the cars purchased.

D. Prosecution and Trial
 In order to avoid any conflict of interest or lack of impartiality as both defendants
are judiciary officers and also previously a Deputy Public Prosecutor from theAttorney General Chambers, the Government of Brunei engaged Queen’s Counsel(QC) from the United Kingdom to lead the prosecution team.
 Meanwhile the Judiciary Department assigned the case to the visiting High Court
Judge from the United Kingdom to Brunei to hear the case.
 In July 2018, both defendants faced 157 charges which were reduced to 40 charges
for offences of criminal breach of trust (CBT) by a public servant under Section 409
of the Penal Code, Cap 22; money laundering (ML) under Section 3, CARO; andpossession of unexplained property under Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act,Cap 131.

- 40 - 40 - In January 2020, the case was concluded with a conviction of the charges for bothdefendants. Haji Nabil was sentenced to 5 years for the offence under money
laundering while Ramzidah was sentenced 10 years concurrently for CBT andmoney laundering.
II. CONCLUSION
The High Court sentenced Ramzidah, who was the deputy official receiver at theBankruptcy Office to the maximum penalty of ten (10) years for each of the charges ofcriminal breach of trust by a public servant and five (5) years for each of the charges ofmoney laundering. This maximum custodial sentence is allowed under the relevant
legislation. The judge highlighted during sentencing that “it would be impossible to find amore egregious example of criminal breach of trust and it was wrong you assume that yourposition in judiciary and society could protect you from your crime”.
For Hj Nabil who was a senior magistrate, the court sentenced him to five years
concurrently for each of his offences of money laundering. The judge highlighted that there
is no doubt that he was fully aware of his wife’s activity. If he had integrity, he could havereported it to the authorities, but he was more than happy to share in the lavish lifestyle hiswife has provided. He had abused his position in the judiciary.
Though both defendants have been sentenced to jail, the prosecution still applied for abenefit recovery order to assess the value of the benefit derived from the defendant's crimes.
The prosecution has also filed notice for a restraining order on all the property seized by
the Anti-Corruption Bureau to prohibit the property from being taken or dealt with in any
manner, as they are subject to the confiscation order.
This case proves that judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials are not above
the law, and they are independent in combating corruption and other wrongdoing.

References
i.
ii.
iii.

Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 131)
Criminal Asset Recovery Order (CARO), 2012
PP vs Ramzidah binti Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Kol (R) Hj Abdul Rahman (1stDefendant) Haji Nabil Daraina bin Pehin Udana Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia
Ustaz Hj Awang Badaruddin (2nd Defendant) Criminal Trial No.11 of 2018)- 41 - 41 -