Partners

Your Ref : AO-83-108-07/2019 Hizri bin Hasshan

LL.B (Hons), LL.M, UKM
Our Ref : AHA.C1A.099.RAFIZI.19 [1] EDIL (Islamic Banking) IIUM
Noorazmir bin Zakaria
LL.B (Hons) IIUM, DIJAP (Hons), USIM
Date : 20th October 2019 Muhammad Akram bin Dato’ Dr. Abdul Aziz
LL.B (Hons), UiTM
Ahmad Shamil Azad bin Abdul Hamid
LL.B (Hons), UiTM
PENGARAH PENDAKWAAN NEGERI
Senior Associate
Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Perak, Ayu Pertiwi binti Hussain
LL.B (Hons), UKM
Tingkat 1, Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan,
Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab,
30000 Ipoh,
PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Via E-Mail, Fax & Letter
Dear Sir,

APPLICATION TO REVIEW CHARGE

Case Number : AO-83-108-07/2019
Trial Court : Mahkamah Majistret Parit, Perak
Accused Person : Mohamad Rafizi Bin Ali
I/C Number : 930426-08-5031
Charge : Section 4B(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953

The abovementioned matter is referred to where we act as legal representatives for

Mr Mohamad Rafizi Bin Ali (hereby referred to as ‘our client’) in the abovementioned
case.

2. Our client had been arrested on the 3rd of July 2019, at 1303, PK 20/1, Kg Pasir
Kubu, Pulau Tiga Kiri, Kg Gajah, Perak, allegedly for committing an offence under
Section 4B(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953.
Please quote our reference when replying
Office Address Telephone : +603 – 9174 5701 Office hours
Suite 9.03, Level 9, Wisma Zelan, Facsimile : +603 – 9174 5702 Monday to Thursday : 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
No. 1, Jalan Tasik Permaisuri 2 E-mail : enquiry@akramhizriazad.com Friday : 9.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.
Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Kuala Lumpur. Website : www.akramhizriazad.com Saturday, Sunday & Public Holiday : Closed
3. We have been instructed to write to your good office in order to humbly
request that the charges be reviewed, and that an alternative charge under Section
7(2) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 be offered to our Client. Should our
application be allowed, our Client is willing to plead guilty to the said charge.

4. Herewith are our justification for such an application for your reference and
kind consideration:

i. Our Client Did Not Manage Any Online Gambling Transaction

Our client was arrested whilst in the possession of a smartphone which

had an appllication that resembles a gambling software. However,
there is no proof that our Client was managing said software, nor was
there proof that the software was indeed a gambling software. He was
not arrested whilst dealing with the software and merely had the
smartphone in his possession.

The smartphone is used by our Client as his communication device

primarily. There was no evidence or observation that our Client was
dealing with any gambling machine, nor providing any top-up service
for said machines. He was not observed using his mobile phone, which
was alleged to have been a gaming machine. He merely handed it
over when it was requested by the police.

Merely having in one’s possession a handphone with an application

that has virtual gambling resemblance does not immediately deem a
person as to have committed the offence of dealing with gambling
machines. In looking at the current case, there is insufficient evidence
to uphold the charges made against our Client.
ii. The Handphones Were Not Gambling Machines

The handphone that was handed over by our Client was not, in any
shape or form, a gambling machine. It is a communication device with
smart functions whereby one can install applications such as games
and other useful tools. There was no evidence that the handphone was
modified in any way, in order to cause it to become a gaming
machine.

Based on the gaming expert report, it can be clearly seen that the
handphone had an application that resembles virtual gambling.
However, there is no proof whatsoever that the game was ever used
and there exists no record to show that the any form of money or
money’s worth was ever used to gamble. There was no record of
transactions recovered from the telephone, nor was there are record
of winnings or losses. All that was found on the telephone was a few
games that resembles virtual gambling, which is not gaming unless it
involves the exchange of money or money’s worth.

All that the expert can extoll is mere assumptions with no actual proof
to back such findings. His analysis was woefully incomplete and thus
raises further question as to the veracity of his findings.

iii. Our Client Was Not Dealing With Gambling Machines

As previously stated, our client was merely returning home after a trip
and had his handphone seized by the police. This was not an act of
dealing with gambling machines. He merely had an application in his
communication device, which carries with it trace elements of virtual
gambling, which, is not uncommon in this day an age where there are
 multiple online and offline games which contain elements of faux
virtual gambling, and are not, in essence, actual gambling.

5. Taking into consideration all the above factors, it is our humble request that
you consider reviewing the charge and further allow for an alternative charge
under Section 7(2) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953. Should our humble
application be granted, our Client is willing to plead guilty to the said charge. We
humbly request that your good office with approve of this application and as such
bring this matter to a close in a manner satisfactory to all.

Should any issues or questions arise from our representation, please feel free to
contact our person-in-charge of this case, Mr Ahmad Shamil Azad Bin Abdul Hamid.
He can be contacted via email at azad@akramhizriazad.com or, via telephone at
016-2225838 or via fax at 03-91745702.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

……………………..………………………
For and on behalf of
MESSRS AKRAM HIZRI AZAD & AZMIR
(formerly Messrs Akram Hizri & Azad)