亚马逊云账号（www.2km.me）提供aws账号、aws全区号、aws32v账号、亚马逊云账号出售，提供api ，质量稳定，数量持续。另有售azure oracle linode等账号.
ON December 8, 2021 the Court of Appeal handed down their decision rejecting the appeal of the former prime minister (the appellant ) in his attempt to overturn the decision of the High Court which held the appellant guilty on total of seven charges relating to i) receipt of gratification of RM42 million by involvement in decision-making as public officer of the government of Malaysia in breach of section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009; ii) breach of section 409 of penal code that as an agent of SRC and in capacity as PM, finance minister and adviser emeritus committed a criminal breach of trust as in those capacities as being entrusted with dominion over RM42 million belonging to SRC; and iii) money laundering charges under section 4(1) (b) of the Anti–Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA ) by receipt of total of RM42 million into his personal bank account.
Significance of case for public body officer
A controller shareholder and also board of director of a corporation, including a government-linked (GLC) ought to take heed of the court’s affirmation of Justice Nazlan‘s Mohd Ghazali’s High Court decision.
A director-cum-dominant owner is now fastened with fiduciary duties which in the event of found misconduct may be exposed to not only civil liabilities under company and capital market laws and regulatory regime, but also severe sanctions under criminal law in the form of custodial penalties.
Finding on corruption charges
The court held that there are two main elements for an offence of illegal gratification under the MACC Act i.e. i) the accused was an officer of a public body; and ii) the accused had used his office or position for gratification for himself, his relative or associate.
The appellate court upheld the High Court ruling that the ex-PM, being a member of administration and a member of Parliament, and in receipt of public funds in being remunerated from such is a “member of public body”.
As for use of position for gratification, the court notes that there are statutory presumptions under section 23(2) of MACC Act upon the prosecution proving that an accused has taken part in the making of any decision or taking any action and such a decision or action concerned a matter in which the appellant had either a direct or indirect interest.
The appellant’s presence at two cabinet meetings approving government guarantees in favour of pension fund KWAP when read with Kod Etika Bagi Anggota-Anggota Pentadbiran (D599 and D599-A) which precludes a holder of public office to ensure that no conflict of interest arises between his holding the public office and personal interest. When such a situation arises a public officer must not only declare his interest but also leave the meeting and his non-attendance during the meeting or deliberations be recorded. The appellant in this case failed to comply with the above stated ethical norms.