Najib’s SRC appeal: Defence highlights inadmissibility of yet another prosecution witness’ testimony linking RM42m funds to former PM
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak arrives at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya April 7, 2021. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
PUTRAJAYA, April 7 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lead defence highlighted today the apparent inadmissibility of yet another prosecution witness’ testimony on the grounds of hearsay that had linked the RM42 million transacted out of SRC International Sdn Bhd with instructions from Najib, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh said this during submission in Najib’s appeal hearing against the former prime minister’s conviction and jail sentence for the misappropriation of RM42 million in SRC International funds.
Harvinderjit said the disputed testimony concerned the 49th prosecution witness (PW49), former Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia (YR1M) chief executive Ung Su Ling.
Ung had testified that she had received instructions from Najib’s former principal private secretary, Datuk Seri Azlin Alias, to coordinate the transfer of RM42 million to Najib’s bank accounts for corporate social responsibility (CSR) purposes between December 2014 and February 2015.
Harvin further argued that the alleged December 2014 and February 2015 instructions to Ung from Azlin purportedly via a WhatsApp message were not produced in court as evidence, as Ung had admitted to having disposed of the phone where it had been stored.
“Neither the primary document (phone device) nor any form of acceptable secondary evidence was produced,” he said.
He also disputed Ung’s witness statement in which she said that she had been told by Azlin in a September 2014 meeting that there would be monies transferred to Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd (IPSB), which the prosecution had relied on for the contents of the WhatsApp conversation.
IPSB was the CSR arm of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
Contending further, Harvinderjit said trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali relied on Ung’s evidence on her conversation with Azlin to link Najib to the charges arraigned against him.
This follows an earlier submission by Najib’s defence lawyer in the appeal hearing yesterday disputing the testimony of one of the trial’s key prosecution witnesses, former SRC International director Datuk Suboh Md Yassin (PW42).
In the submission, it was argued that the trial judge had failed to conduct a maximum evaluation of PW42’s inconsistent testimony throughout the trial.
Ung’s testimony
Ung had in July 2019 during the trial testified that Azlin had instructed her to inform lPSB to transfer RM42 million into Najib’s bank account in December 2014 and February 2015.
At the time of the transfers, Azlin and Najib both sat on YR1M’s board of trustees along with former 1MDB chairman Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamarudin and special officer at the Prime Minister’s Office, Datuk Wan Shihab Wan Ismail.
She told the court that the three fund transfers into Najib’s accounts CSR purposes were made in tranches of RM27 million, RM5 million and RM10 million which amounted to the aforementioned RM42 million misappropriated by Najib.
In her testimony, she said she did not know who was the owner of the two AmPrivate Banking-MY accounts she was instructed to make the fund transfers by Azlin, but was later revealed in court through bank documents and other witnesses as bank accounts registered under Najib.
Subsequent to the transfers, Ung also said that all messages between her and Azlin were deleted after he had passed away in a helicopter in April 2015.
She also affirmed that she disposed of the mobile device soon after.
In the RM42 million SRC International case, Najib was sentenced to 10 years’ jail on each of the three counts of CBT and each of the three counts of money laundering, and 12 years’ jail and a RM210 million fine, in default five years’ jail, in the case of abuse of position on July 28 last year.
However, Najib will only serve 12 years in jail as the judge ordered all the jail sentences to run concurrently.
The appeal hearing before Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil who chaired a three-member panel alongside Datuk Has Zanah Mehat and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera continues.
Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh said this during submission in Najib’s appeal hearing against the former prime minister’s conviction and jail sentence for the misappropriation of RM42 million in SRC International funds.
Harvinderjit said the disputed testimony concerned the 49th prosecution witness (PW49), former Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia (YR1M) chief executive Ung Su Ling.
Ung had testified that she had received instructions from Najib’s former principal private secretary, Datuk Seri Azlin Alias, to coordinate the transfer of RM42 million to Najib’s bank accounts for corporate social responsibility (CSR) purposes between December 2014 and February 2015.
Harvin further argued that the alleged December 2014 and February 2015 instructions to Ung from Azlin purportedly via a WhatsApp message were not produced in court as evidence, as Ung had admitted to having disposed of the phone where it had been stored.
“Neither the primary document (phone device) nor any form of acceptable secondary evidence was produced,” he said.
He also disputed Ung’s witness statement in which she said that she had been told by Azlin in a September 2014 meeting that there would be monies transferred to Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd (IPSB), which the prosecution had relied on for the contents of the WhatsApp conversation.
IPSB was the CSR arm of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
Contending further, Harvinderjit said trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali relied on Ung’s evidence on her conversation with Azlin to link Najib to the charges arraigned against him.
This follows an earlier submission by Najib’s defence lawyer in the appeal hearing yesterday disputing the testimony of one of the trial’s key prosecution witnesses, former SRC International director Datuk Suboh Md Yassin (PW42).
In the submission, it was argued that the trial judge had failed to conduct a maximum evaluation of PW42’s inconsistent testimony throughout the trial.
Ung’s testimony
Ung had in July 2019 during the trial testified that Azlin had instructed her to inform lPSB to transfer RM42 million into Najib’s bank account in December 2014 and February 2015.
At the time of the transfers, Azlin and Najib both sat on YR1M’s board of trustees along with former 1MDB chairman Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamarudin and special officer at the Prime Minister’s Office, Datuk Wan Shihab Wan Ismail.
She told the court that the three fund transfers into Najib’s accounts CSR purposes were made in tranches of RM27 million, RM5 million and RM10 million which amounted to the aforementioned RM42 million misappropriated by Najib.
In her testimony, she said she did not know who was the owner of the two AmPrivate Banking-MY accounts she was instructed to make the fund transfers by Azlin, but was later revealed in court through bank documents and other witnesses as bank accounts registered under Najib.
Subsequent to the transfers, Ung also said that all messages between her and Azlin were deleted after he had passed away in a helicopter in April 2015.
She also affirmed that she disposed of the mobile device soon after.
In the RM42 million SRC International case, Najib was sentenced to 10 years’ jail on each of the three counts of CBT and each of the three counts of money laundering, and 12 years’ jail and a RM210 million fine, in default five years’ jail, in the case of abuse of position on July 28 last year.
However, Najib will only serve 12 years in jail as the judge ordered all the jail sentences to run concurrently.
The appeal hearing before Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil who chaired a three-member panel alongside Datuk Has Zanah Mehat and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera continues.
I wonder if KT will be as religiously attentive and reproduce the respondent side’s arguments like he is doing for the appellants. Let’s see...ha ha ha..if he doesn’t maybe I will.....
ReplyDelete"Neither the primary nor acceptable secondary evidence was produced..."
ReplyDeleteBut...
Jibby's central defence was his belief that the money that suddenly appeared in his personal bank account was donated by the Saudi King. However, his defence did not produce a single witness from Saudi to testify about the purported donation The former King's secretary, finance minister etc? I cannot believe a good Muslim would not come to the defence of a fellow brother facing jail time.
QUOTE
Najib's story of Arab donations 'preposterous and ridiculous'
By Sharanjit Singh - July 29, 2020
KUALA LUMPUR: High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali yesterday ripped apart Datuk Seri Najib Razak's story of receiving donations from the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In his judgment involving the former prime minister's SRC International Sdn Bhd case where Najib was eventually found guilty and sentenced to 12 years' jail in addition to being fined RM210 million, Nazlan said Najib's defence was centred on the premise that he believed funds which flowed into his personal bank accounts in 2014 and 2015 were Arab donation monies. He said the question which the court needed to decide on was whether Najib's alleged belief and knowledge that the foreign remittances came from King Abdullah was genuine or contrived. He said the defence's argument was that Najib had all the while believed funds in his accounts were further Arab donations intimated by Jho Low. Nazlan said Najib had cited the late Saudi King's pledge of support during their meeting in early 2010 as the main premise of his belief. It is clear from the testimony of the accused that at the meeting with the Saudi monarch, the latter did mention his support for Najib's administration of Malaysia which - in the late King Abdullah's view - was a model of Islamic governance and a peaceful multicultural nation which should continue to be maintained. "However, it must be noted that King Abdullah did not articulate the form of the support. In other words, Najib himself – in his witness statements and answers when cross-examined and re-examined – during the 15 days on the witness stand, admitted that King Abdullah did not mention any intention to provide any financial support or donation of monies to him...Or to Malaysia."
UNQUOTE
The strange world of the Najib propagandist, where Black is White, and White is Black, and Cash is King, and Najib now don't know nothing
ReplyDeleteJibby's legal team is filibustering the Court of Appeal with more than 300 reasons to overturn the High Court decision to convict. Then the tembak-panas lauyars keep repeating the same point over and over again until the judges got fed-up.
ReplyDeleteCOA is where you point out where the earlier judge erred. It is not a re-trial where the same evidence is re-presented.
QUOTE
Stop repeating the same thing over and over, Najib's lawyers reminded
By Sharanjit Singh - April 8, 2021
PUTRAJAYA: Lawyers representing Datuk Seri Najib Razak were today reminded not to go on and on repeating the same arguments in trying to convince the Court of Appeal to overturn the jail sentence and fine imposed on the former prime minister.
Judge Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil told this to lawyer Harvinderjit Singh, who is one of the lawyers representing Najib, right at the start of today's hearing.
"You were scheduled to finish your submission today. However, I see that your submission has been focused on the same issues and facts.
"You all (Najib's team) are overlapping on the same thing the past three days. We (the bench of three judges) are still waiting for your submission on the charges...how the trial judge erred, issues of law and all that. You haven't touched on this at all," he said immediately after the court was called into session.
Harvinderjit acknowledged the judge's reminder, saying: "I will do that now."
However, as he started to argue Najib's case by touching on the criminal breach of trust issue, Karim stopped him in his tracks and said that he was repeating the same arguments again.
"You are repeating again. I say again, you must make us clear (on how the trial judge erred)....," Karim said in a sharp voice.
Harvinderjit then again acknowledged the judge's reminder and pledged to move on.
UNQUOTE