Lawyer Asks Why Yayasan AlBukhary Not Investigated

 KL Sept 14 — judge questioned why millions donations from Yayasan Albukhary to Yayasan Akalbudi not made through cheques, but in cash stuffed into bags and passed to a moneychanger first and then converted into cheques?

Zahid  facing 47 charges

Zahid’s lawyer arguing on 27th money-laundering charge 

Zahid instructed money changer Omar to convert RM7.5m into 35 cheques
Omar testified individuals from Bukhary handed him cash at mall, hotel lobbies
first luggage had RM1.5m 
Omar converted RM7.5m into cheques made to Lawyer & Co
Lawyer & Co holds money on trust for Yayasan Akalbudi

• judge Collin Sequerah sought clarification from Zahid’s lawyer 
• easier to just write cheque? Why bring bagful of cash?” judge asked

Zahid’s lawyer said donno as investigators did not probe this
That’s our complaint, prosecution did not investigate
answer only from Albukhary
the investigating officer never investigated
there’s no investigation, we cannot say proceeds unlawful 
Unless and until they call a witness from Albukhary and give evidence he replied
investigation never revealed Albukhary donated as testified by Omar Ali
confirmed to judge that no one from Albukhary called to testify over RM7.5m 
because there’s no investigation the charge falls

• we challenge prosecution to show evidence Albukhary never donated (Huh??)
• questioned prosecution’s submission that RM7.5m illegal, not from Albukhary

My Comments :

Unless the investigators had already determined that there was no evidence that those mysterious individuals who dropped off those bags of cash were indeed from alBukhary. 

Since that money changer did not know their names how could the investigators determine who they were or where they were from.

Which would make the cash drops even more dubious. RM7.5 million dropped off by mystery men!!

But if it has been presented to the Court that the cash was indeed from Yayasan AlBukhary then the question is relevant. Why wasnt the Yayasan AlBukhary investigated or called to testify at the Court?  

Not only the MACC Investigators but the Prosecution must answer this question.

Because if such important 'persons of interest' are not called to testify it can significantly impact the case.

Among the reasons cited by the judge in that famous murder trial of Altantuya Sharibuu (where the accused was acquitted) was that one witness, that Senior Policeman, was not called to testify.  That Senior Policeman was witness to some of the events surrounding the case yet he was not called to testify - until today.  The absence of that Senior Policeman's testimony certainly contributed to the accused being acquitted (in that case).

1. To me the smoking gun is delivering cash in bags to a money changer at malls and hotel lobbies.
2. Money changer then deposits money into his own bank account.
3. Then money changer converts cash into cheques.
4. Cheques made out to third party (a law firm).
5. Law firm banks in cheques into their own account (I assume).
6. Law firm holds money on trust for Yayasan.
7. Law firm later deposits moneys (via cheque) into Yayasan's account. 

Steps 2 to Step 6 are just 'in between' movements.  To make the bread crumbs disappear.

But in this case the trail that was left behind was wider than Rosmah's tracks in the mud.

The only way to bungle this case is if the Prosecution bungles.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.