Why was Fenaka’s former MD given the harshest sentence despite no criminal record?
Saeed received four years in prison for abuse of official authority
Saeed's family and well-wishers outside the Criminal Court after its ruling
In a high-profile corruption case, the Criminal Court on Sunday sentenced former Fenaka Managing Director Ahmed Saeed to four years in prison for abuse of official authority, delivering the harshest punishment allowed under the law, despite his previously clean criminal record.
The verdict was issued by Chief Judge Adam Mohamed, who found Saeed guilty of misusing his position to authorize public funds for a private company without evidence of any work completed. Although the Penal Code allows for a lighter sentence, starting at one year, seven months, and six days for a fourth-degree felony, the court opted for the maximum punishment.
The prosecution, under Section 513(b) with reference to 513(c) of the Penal Code, did not push for an enhanced sentence, stating there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
However, the defense argued otherwise. Saeed’s legal team claimed that:
- He had no prior criminal convictions.
- He acted based on legal advice, providing a partially exculpatory defense under Section 1109.
- The standard punishment should be reduced by one or two degrees, referencing Sections 1104 and 1109(b).
- A portion of any prison sentence should be converted into a fine.
Despite these arguments, the judge concluded that there were, in fact, aggravating factors that warranted the maximum penalty.
According to the court’s findings, senior Fenaka officials under Saeed’s leadership authorized a payout of MVR 805,600 to a company that had not performed any contracted work. The judge highlighted that such actions caused a direct financial loss to the state and contributed to systemic corruption within a public utility funded by taxpayers.
The ruling expressed concern that when senior officials of state-owned companies engage in large-scale corruption, it not only erodes public trust but also inflates operational costs. The judge warned that these increased costs are inevitably passed down to ordinary citizens in the form of higher service prices.
The judgment went further, criticizing the broader culture of impunity in state-owned enterprises. The judge observed that corruption and embezzlement of public funds had become so routine in state-run companies that such behavior is now seen as “normal.” He added that lenient punishments in past corruption cases have only emboldened those engaging in such acts.
Referencing Section 1003 of the Penal Code, the judge concluded that imposing the maximum sentence was both appropriate and necessary to send a clear message. In doing so, the court sought not only to hold Saeed accountable but also to set a precedent amid a growing perception of normalized corruption in public institutions.
