Court to decide on corruption case involving Bung's widow on July 20

 

The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court has fixed July 20 to decide on the graft charges involving Zizie Izette Abdul Samad, the widow of former Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin.

Judge Rosli Ahmad fixed the date today after hearing oral submissions from both parties. He also fixed July 9 as the deadline for prosecution and defence to file their additional submissions.

Zizie was charged in 2019 with abetting Bung in receiving RM2.8 million in bribes. The late former MP was previously accused of three graft charges, allegedly receiving the funds to obtain approval for Felcra Bhd to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.

According to the first charge, Bung, who was then-Felcra non-executive chairperson, was accused of accepting RM2.2 million in cash from Public Mutual agent Madhi Abdul Hamid, via Zizie.

For the second charge, Bung was accused of accepting RM262,500 in cash from Madhi through the Public Islamic Treasures Growth Fund account number 044797816 registered in Zizie’s name, for a similar purpose.

The Sabah Umno chief was also accused of accepting RM337,500 in cash from unit trust consultant Norhaili Ahmad Mokhtar, through the Public Ittikal Sequel Fund account number 044797824 registered in Zizie’s name.

The late Bung Moktar Radin

Apart from abetment, Zizie was also charged with receiving RM337,500 in cash from Norhaili for the same reason and place on June 19, 2015.

Zizie’s charges were framed under Section 28(1)(c) MACC Act 2009, while Bung’s charges were framed under Section 17(a) of the Act.

However, the court acquitted Bung of his charges following his passing on Dec 5 last year, while maintaining the charges against Zizie.

Zizie, when testifying in her defence under oath, said the RM2.8 million was an “introduction fee” she received from Madhi and Norhaili, which was given voluntarily and lawfully.

Zizie’s charges stand on their own

Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How submitted earlier that the charges against Zizie can stand on their own despite the charges against Bung, which is the principal offence, having been struck off.

“Bung’s death does not affect the charges against Zizie as the abetment offence is a standalone, and does not depend on the deceased’s charges.

“The accused (Zizie) can still be convicted, based on her role in the abetment,” he said, adding that the case against Zizie concerns conspiratorial abetment.

Law also submitted that the court can still consider Bung’s evidence, which he gave under oath before his death.

Following this, Zizie’s lawyer, M Athimulan, stood up to seek clarification, claiming “conspiratorial abetment” was never mentioned throughout the case proceedings.

ADS

Athimulan also submitted that the charges against Zizie should fail, as there is no principal offence, following Bung’s acquittal.

“A dead man cannot defend himself. Bung has been discharged and acquitted (so is) the prosecution trying to challenge the court’s decision?” Athimulan asked.

“(As the court) has made no finding of guilt regarding commission of a principal offence, in the absence of a positive finding of a principal offence, the charge of abetment against (Zizie) cannot stand,” the lawyer adds.

Subsequently, the judge ordered both parties to file additional submissions on a few matters, including arguments on conspiracy that the prosecution raised.

Zizie’s charges weak, circumstantial

The defence, in its written submissions, claimed the charges against Zizie were weak and circumstantial, as there was no evidence adduced to prove the accused had abetted and substantially assisted Bung in committing the offence.

“There is neither evidence that Bung had any knowledge of the introductory fees received by Zizie, nor that she had received the sum as a corrupt payment on behalf of Bung.

“Other than the mere fact that Zizie is the wife of Bung and was the person who introduced Madhi and Norhaili to Bung, there is nothing in evidence for this court to draw an adverse inference against Zizie that she had played any role in abetting Bung in the principal offences.

“It is not an offence under the MACC Act or any other legislation for Zizie to receive an introductory fee from (the Public Mutual agents), especially since it has been clearly stated and confirmed by Madhi and Norhaili that they had voluntarily given the sum of RM2.8 million as an introductory fee.” - Mkini