The criminal trial of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak involving the alleged misappropriation of funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd enters its 15th day today at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysiakini brings you live reports of the proceedings.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
- RM110m went to Putra Perdana Construction's account
- 'Permai Binaraya instructs Maybank to transfer RM27m to Najib'
- Maybank received instruction to transfer RM140m to SRC
- Shafee grills Bank Negara officer on investigation diary
- I've power to investigate, not to examine Najib - witness
- Suspicious transactions: Informing Najib amounts to 'tipping off'
- AmBank fined for not reporting suspicious transactions
- SRC didn't submit required information - witness
- Defence and witness continue to clash
RM110m went to Putra Perdana Construction's account
3.10pm - Witness Halijah further testifies that RM110 million was transferred from Putra Perdana Development's Maybank account to Putra Perdana Construction's Maybank account on Dec 12, 2014.
She tells DPP Sulaiman that this was done on a directive letter on that date.
'Permai Binaraya instructs Maybank to transfer RM27m to Najib'
2.40pm - Assistant manager Halijah tells the court that Maybank's KL Branch received instruction from Permai Binaraya Sdn Bhd on July 8, 2014 to transfer RM27 million to Najib's AmBank account.
During examination-in-chief by DPP Sulaiman Kho, she testifies that the transfer was made from Permai Binaraya's Maybank account number 514012042754 to Najib's AmBank account number 2112022011880.
The instruction letter was received via fax on July 8, 2014, followed by the original copy two days later, according to Halijah.
She is referring to bank documents such as Rentas and a directive letter from Permai Bina Raya.
Maybank received instruction to transfer RM140m to SRC
2.10pm - Halijah testifies that the bank received an instruction from Putra Perdana Construction Sdn Bhd to transfer RM140 million to SRC International's account on Dec 12, 2014.
She tells the court that this was based on an instruction letter by Putra Perdana Construction.
The transfer was made from the company's Maybank account number 014011327183 to SRC International's AmBank account number 2112022010650.
Court breaks for Zohor prayer
1.04pm - Defence counsel Shafee requests for the court to adjourn for the zohor prayer break before the defence starts their cross-examination of prosecution's 31st witness, Maybank's KL branch assistant manager Halijah Abdul Wahab.
He tells Justice Nazlan (photo) that the prayer would start at 1.10pm, and they want to be able to catch the time to pray at the Wilayah Persekutuan mosque nearby.
The judge, who appears to be wanting to continue the trial before calling for a break, however, tells Shafee that the mosque is just across the road.
Shafee then tells the court that they would need some time to reach the mosque and make it for the prayer.
The judge then calls for a 30-minute break.
Earlier, the witness testifies that both Putra Perdana Construction Sdn Bhd and Permai Binaraya Sdn Bhd have bank accounts at the branch.
She tells the court that on July 8, 2014, Putra Perdana Construction Sdn Bhd had instructed the bank to transfer RM34,999,993.00 to Permai Binaraya's account.
Putra Perdana Construction's Maybank account number was 014011327183 and Permai Binaraya's Maybank account number was 514012042754.
Shafee grills Bank Negara officer on investigation diary
12pm - Cross-examination of Bank Negara officer Farhan continues with lead defence counsel Shafee grilling him over his method of keeping records of Bank Negara raid and probe against AmBank.
Before leading to more detailed questions on files and handphones seized by Bank Negara during its raid on AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan branch in 2015, Shafee presses Farhan on investigation diary that the officer keeps detailing step-by-step of the probe.
Shafee: Do you keep an investigation diary when you investigate? When you investigate, you take a statement from witnesses, you recover documents, whatever you were doing, you have to keep an investigation diary. You can call it by other names. Do you have such documents? As a system?
Farhan: Yes (I do), (it is called) investigation diary.
Shafee: (Is it in) format as per the Criminal Procedure Code?
Farhan: No. I'm not aware of the format.
Shafee: (It is) required for investigation diary.
Farhan: I'm not aware of that.
Shafee: Under what provision you maintained the investigation diary? You must know. Because your investigation diary must have a borang number.
Farhan: Sorry I have no idea.
The 4th prosecution witness told the court that he had indeed keep an investigation diary, but it was no put as a part of his investigation paper.
Farhan says the document was in his personal keeping and agreed to Shafee's question that the investigation diary was to make him less dependent on his memory.
The cross-examination then goes with Shafee asking Farhan about documents and handphones that were seized during Bank Negara raid on Ambank Jalan Raja Chulan on July 6, 2015.
Farhan testifies that the raiding party seized a total of 11 files from the bank, eight of which had been tendered in the court as evidence.
All the files had then been handed over to MACC, he said.
Shafee then asks Farhan on two handphones - a Blackberry and a Samsung - seized by the raiding team.
The witness testifies that the Blackberry and a report of its analysis were handed over to MACC in August 2015.
He, however, does not know what happened to the Samsung handphone.
Shafee: Did you do forensics investigation before the hand over (to MACC)?
Farhan: Personally no.
Shafee: Not personally, Bank Negara?
Farhan: I believe for the Blackberry, there was an instruction, because I saw Suzarizman handed over (the) report to MACC.
Shafee: They extracted information from the Blackberry before giving to MACC?
Farhan: Yes.
Shafee: Extracted info from two phones? One Blackberry, one Samsung?
Farhan: I'm not aware of Samsung
Shafee: From Blackberry?
Farhan: I saw the report.
The witness testifies that he saw the report and the items were given to MACC in Aug 2015, but did not keep a copy of the extraction report as "it was not necessary to my investigation".
Farhan (photo), to a question by Shafee, says he believed that Suzarizman would have the report in his keeping.
To this, Shafee goes on to ask the witness whether he would know why the report had yet to reach the defence team.
Shafee: You know why the report took so long to come? Why not coming to us now?
Farhan: I have no idea.
Shafee: You agree the report was generated from the raid. That's what puzzled me. This was generated in 2015. Is there a reason for the delay?
There is no answer from Farhan before DPP Sithambaram interjects.
Shafee then asks Farhan if he would agree that the content of the Blackberry is important to be preserved.
Farhan: "Yes".
I've power to investigate, not to examine Najib - witness
11.50am - Harvinderjit and Bank Negara officer Farhan start a fiery exchange on whether the 4th witness has the power to interview Najib in regards to the suspicious transactions seen in the former premier's accounts at Ambank Raja Chulan up to 2015.
The lawyer asks Farhan on whether the latter, belonging to Bank Negara's Financial Intelligence and Enforcement Department, could have interviewed Najib over the transactions.
The suspicious transactions were found by Bank Negara when it raided the commercial bank on July 6, 2015. Farhan was involved in the raid.
The bank was later fined for failure to report the transactions to the central bank.
Harvinderjit: You could have interviewed the account holder (Najib)?
Farhan: No.
When the lawyer makes reference to Sections 14 and 20 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Amla) in regard to Bank Negara's power of examination and investigation and equates to Farhan having the power to interview Najib over the transactions, the witness proceeds to correct him.
"We are talking about examining, not investigation, my learned counsel.
"Examining and investigating are two different things," Farhan says, triggering laughter from those present in court.
Farhan says that he only has the power to investigate, not examine the account holder Najib over the matter.
Suspicious transactions: Informing Najib amounts to 'tipping off'
11.10am - Bank Negara officer Farhan says that even if Ambank Raja Chulan had reported suspicious transactions in Najib's account to Bank Negara as Suspicious Transaction Report (STR), the former premier would not be informed of this as it would amount to tipping off the account holder.
He is answering during cross-examination by Shafee, who is asking the witness if Ambank had done its job in submitting the STR to the central bank in 2015, then Najib would have been duly informed of it.
Farhan had overseen a Bank Negara team that raided Ambank Raja Chulan on July 6, 2015, and confiscated several bank documents, among them being ones on Najib's accounts.
The commercial bank later that year was fined by Bank Negara for failure to submit STR over the suspicious transactions.
Shafee: Do you agree that if Ambank had done their job in filing the STR, my client (Najib) would have been alerted as early as 2015 or even earlier on any suspicious transaction?
Farhan: I disagree as that is tantamount to tipping off.
Shafee: If Ambank had alerted (Bank Negara) on the transactions, and they got hammered with a fine (by Bank Negara), then it is possible that Bank Negara investigation or any other enforcement agency like MACC or police would have to call the account holder (Najib) to explain these suspicious transactions?
Farhan: I have no comment as that is an inference question.
When Shafee presses on with a similar question, Farhan breaks out into exasperated laughter, eliciting chuckles from others present in the courtroom.
AmBank fined for not reporting suspicious transactions
10.30am - Bank Negara officer Ahmad Farhan Sharifuddin testifies that subsequent to a Bank Negara raid on AmBank Raja Chulan on July 6, 2015, the commercial bank was fined over its failure to send a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) to the central bank over transactions involving Najib's accounts there.
The 4th witness, who is recalled today for cross-examination by the defence, says this when questioned by Harvinderjit (photo).
Harvinderjit: In your investigation, was the bank fined?
Farhan: Yes.
Harvinderjit: Since it is directly related to your investigation, what was the infringement (by Ambank Raja Chulan branch in Kuala Lumpur)?
Farhan: It was for an offence of failure to submit Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) on Datuk Seri's (Najib) accounts (at the commercial bank).
Harvinderjit: For which transaction was it?
Farhan: I cannot pinpoint a specific transaction.
Harvinderjit: Was it for (transactions) pre or post 2013?
Farhan: (Transactions from) opening and closing of the accounts. All transactions (in the period).
Farhan was involved in the raid on Ambank.
SRC didn't submit required information - witness
10.10am - Amirul Imran Ahmat testifies that in his experience as KWAP officer, only SRC International had failed to submit documents and detailed information required by KWAP when applying for a loan with the retirement fund.
He tells prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusoff that no other company could get away without similar submissions.
Ishak: In your experience serving with KWAP, was there any other company that did not submit all the documents and details of information like SRC, when they apply (for a loan) with KWAP?
Amirul: No.
Ishak: If they did not submit (the documents), their applications would not be approved?
Amirul: Yes.
During the cross-examination, the 29th prosecution witness is also asked why he disagrees with defence counsel Harvinderjit's suggestion that what SRC does with funds from KWAP is not the latter's business.
Amirul tells the court that the asset agreement between KWAP and SRC was "just a syariah method to facilitate syariah compliance".
He testified that this was why the agreement was called between "financier and customer".
The question by Ishak was in response to Harvinderjit's question yesterday put to Amirul that KWAP has no business to know what SRC did with its funds as the entities had a syariah-based agreement under which SRC sold its asset to KWAP to secure a loan from the latter.
Defence and witness continue to clash
9.30am - Witness Amirul Imran Ahmat and defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh continue to clash during cross-examination, reminiscent of yesterday's proceedings.
The latest clash comes over the utilisation of the RM2 billion loan facility by KWAP to SRC International in a manner that stretched beyond the initial agreement between the two entities.
Harvinderjit: If funds were released on the same day and the account shows crediting of funds, it is very difficult to determine unless they have a forensic audit report?
Amirul: It is not my job but it can be done.
Harvinderjit: This can be done via forensic audit?
Amirul: Among others.
Their clash continues over the issue of approval linked to the government guarantee for the RM2 billion loan. Harvinderjit tells the witness that the latter has changed his answer.
Harvinderjit: Yesterday you agreed. Now you change your answer.
Amirul: I am not agreeing with (the) earlier statement.
Harvinderjit: It is okay as you are changing your answer.
9.10am - Najib is seen entering the dock as Shafee takes a seat at the front. Justice Nazlan then enters the court to start today's hearing.
9.08am - Members of the defence team including Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (below), and his sidekick Harvinderjit Singh, starts filling in the seats.
9am - Clad in a grey suit, former premier Najib Abdul Razak enters the courtroom and takes a seat at the front row of the public gallery.
29th witness former Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) officer Amirul Imran Ahmat is seen sitting in the witness stand while waiting to be cross-examined by Najib's defence team once proceedings start.
8.52am - Attorney-General Tommy Thomas enters the court and takes a seat at the front with other members of the prosecution team as they await the commencement of proceedings.
Najib Abdul Razak’s defence team will continue their cross-examination of a former Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) officer on the 15th day of the former premier’s trial for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering of SRC International Sdn Bhd’s RM42 million.
Lawyer Harvinderjit Singh is expected to resume his questioning of 29th witness Amirul Imran Ahmat when hearing before Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali starts at 9am this morning.
Yesterday, Amirul, who was KWAP’s assistant vice-president (Fixed Income Department), testified that he had tried to limit the fund's loan to SRC International to RM1 billion in 2011, following its initial loan application for RM3.95 billion.
He said in that year, he was tasked by his superiors to prepare a paper for deliberation by KWAP's investment panel.
1MDB was SRC International's parent company at the time. KWAP is a pension fund for civil servants.
Also part of the 1MDB delegation at the time was the executive director of finance Terrence Geh, general counsel Jasmine Loo and SRC International CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil.
Yesterday, amidst an occasional minor clash between Harvinderjit and Amirul, the 39-year-old witness testified that KWAP’s investment panel would have rejected the SRC International’s application for an RM3.95 billion loan if given the choice.
The former subsidiary of 1MDB was, in the end, granted a total of RM4 billion loan by KWAP between August 2011 and March 2012.
Amirul had also told the court that SRC International’s purported projects in the pipeline only looked good on paper when presented by its managing director Nik Faisal and finance executive director Geh.
Humour though managed to find its way through the normally serious proceedings when Amirul had the whole courtroom in stitches with his labelling of one Zahid Taib as a “multi-purpose guy for Nik Faisal”.
Zahid, whom Amirul testified had never produced a business card, was a person whose name constantly appeared in the witness’ emails and other correspondences with SRC International in regard to the loan.
Members of Najib’s defence team, the prosecution, and even the accused himself had a good laugh when DPP Ishak Mohd Yusoff showed Amirul a photograph of Nik Faisal for the purpose of identification, instead of the usual procedure of calling a witness to enter the court to be identified.
Nik Faisal continues to remain at large despite being wanted by Malaysian authorities as a key figure in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.