The Intermediate Court has acquitted two men of using a counterfeit BND10,000 note as genuine, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that either man knew, or had reason to believe, the note was counterfeit.
The case, ICCT No. 5 of 2025, was heard before Judge Pengiran Hajah Norismayanti Pengiran Haji Ismail.
The defendants, Firmansyah Zamrulian and Zacky Umar, both represented by Defence Counsel Brandon Chin of Messrs Yusof Halim & Partners, were jointly charged under Section 489B of the Penal Code, read with Section 34, over the presentation of the counterfeit note at Zamada Money Changer, Brunei International Airport, on October 10, 2024.
DPP Nurul Fitri Kpirawi accepted that the note was counterfeit and that it had been presented for exchange. The central issue was whether the defendants knew, or had reason to believe, that it was counterfeit.
In relation to Firmansyah, the Court considered the principles on wilful blindness in Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 254. It found that his efforts to verify the note, including obtaining UV-light photographs and attempting to exchange it in Indonesia and Malaysia, did not demonstrate a deliberate refusal to discover the truth.
The Court also relied on the local case of Public Prosecutor v Thian Li Heng (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2016), where attempts to verify counterfeit currency were considered consistent with a genuine belief that the notes were authentic.
The Court found that the counterfeit note was sufficiently sophisticated that its defects required specialised equipment, training and comparison with a genuine note to detect. The prosecution’s own witnesses accepted that an ordinary member of the public would not necessarily have been able to identify those defects.
For Zacky, the Court found the prosecution’s case even weaker. His involvement included accompanying Firmansyah and arranging an advance call to Zamada regarding the exchange. The Court considered that such conduct was difficult to reconcile with guilty knowledge.
The Court further held that common intention under Section 34 could not be established merely from the defendants’ presence or joint conduct. Relying on Mahbub Shah v Emperor and Zamri bin Hj Jaludin & Anor v Public Prosecutor, the Court found there was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds to commit the alleged offence.
The Court also declined to draw an adverse inference from the defendants’ decision to remain silent, holding that silence could not be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
The Court noted shortcomings in the investigation, including the failure to interview the person who allegedly gave Firmansyah the note, despite investigators having his identity and contact details, and the absence of evidence from the Malaysian money changers who had previously rejected the note.
The Court ultimately found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant knew, or had reason to believe, that the note was counterfeit.
Both defendants were acquitted and discharged.