Witness: No obligation to inform Najib of red flags

NAJIB TRIAL | A witness told Najib Abdul Razak's corruption trial today that he had "no comment" on whether the ex-premier would have been tipped off had Bank Negara been alerted about suspicious transactions involving his accounts being flagged.

During cross-examination by defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, witness Ahmad Farhan Sharifuddin (above) confirmed that he was the Bank Negara investigating officer that looked into Najib's accounts at AmBank and that the bank was fined for failing to submit suspicious transaction reports (STR).

When Shafee asked if the account holder subject to STR would be alerted and quizzed by Bank Negara, Farhan replied that legally, this could not be done.

Farhan explained that there were specific provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla) which prevented investigators from acting in a way that would tip off suspects.

Shafee Abdullah

Shafee: Would you agree that had AmBank done their job (and submitted the report), my client would have been alerted as early as 2015 or earlier?

Farhan: I would like to disagree. That is tipping off, under Amla.

Shafee: Had AmBank reported the transactions, there will be a possibility that Bank Negara or any other agency will call the account owner to explain the suspected transaction.

Farhan: I have no comment. That is an inferred question. Hypothetically, if AmBank submits its report and analysis, my answer to your question is "no comment".

Shafee continued suggesting that had Bank Negara received an STR, Najib would have been alerted.

Farhan repeatedly said he was unable to answer hypothetical questions. At one point, Farhan burst out laughing when Shafee reworded the same question.

Harvinderjit Singh

Defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh then took over cross-examination and again probed Farhan on whether other law enforcement agencies would call in the account holder to explain suspicious transactions, to which the witness said he wouldn't know.

This prompted DPP V Sithambaram to object on grounds that the questioning was based on assumptions and had been answered before by the witness.

"How many times you want to ask this (question)?" asked Sithambaram.

Unperturbed, Harvinderjit continued with his line of questioning.

Harvinderjit: In the financial intelligence department, you have no idea whether the account holder would be interviewed regarding suspicious transactions?

Farhan: It is different from analysis. I cannot answer for the MACC.

Harvinderjit: There are suspicious transactions. You can say that you can't answer whether (other agencies can do it). Do you agree if (it is) your investigation, you could interview the account holder?

Farhan: No.

Harvinder ended his cross-examination by asking if the witness believed that STR filings by financial institutions were for the protection of the public which included the account holder.

"Protection? I have no idea," said the witness.

Najib is being tried for receiving RM42 million as gratification for his role in SRC International Sdn Bhd securing a RM4 billion loan from Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP). - Mkini