Allegation of fraud in HRDF RM26.4m suit misconceived - defendants

Two defendants in the Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF)'s RM26.4 million lawsuit claimed that the fund's allegations of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation were misconceived and misplaced.

Claiming as such in their statement of defence were Smart Trends International Sdn Bhd (STI) as well as Emmanuel Benson Abdullah who were listed as first and second defendants in the suit.

Former HRDF CEO CM Vignaesvaran Jeyandran and its former chief special purpose vehicle officer Muhammad Ghazali Abdul Aziz were listed third and fourth defendants respectively.

Previously, Malaysiakini reported that HRDF had filed a lawsuit against the four defendants over alleged fraud involving RM26.4 million in funds paid for training courses for retrenched workers.

According to the statement of defence sighted by Malaysiakini recently, STI and Emmanuel contended that the suit’s cause of action was misconceived and misplaced.

This was because the duo alleged the plaintiff (HRDF) had full knowledge of every aspect of the training courses provided by the second defendant.

“All training programmes conducted were audited by the plaintiff through the attendance of two of their officers at the training programmes,” STI and Emmanuel claimed.

“The plaintiff only approved and made payment to the second defendant when they were satisfied with the results of the audit done during the training and the results of the verification process of the job placement of the graduates of the programmes,” the duo alleged.

“From the abovesaid narrative, it is clear that the plaintiff at all material times was fully appraised and/or had full knowledge of the complete details of the training programmes, the authority conferring the Scaffolding Level One qualifications and the job placement of the graduates.

“Based on that knowledge and being satisfied that the training programmes conducted by the second defendant had met the requirements under the MOC Guidelines were the second defendant’s payments approved and paid.

“Thus the plaintiff’s allegation that they only discovered the alleged fraud in early 2019 as pleaded in Paragraph 23 of the (HRDF’s) statement of claim is baseless and an untruth,” STI and Emmanuel claimed.

The duo alleged that the HRDF’s claim lacked bona fide (good faith) because the plaintiff “had failed to disclose whether any police reports, MACC reports, and/or any domestic enquiry was convened against the third and fourth defendants on the discovery of such alleged failings”.

Former HRDF CEO and third defendant CM Vignaesvaran Jeyandran

STI and Emmanuel further contended that the HRDF’s claim against the third and fourth defendants was premature.

“Hence until the plaintiff proves that the payment approved and made by the third and fourth defendant was wrong, fraudulently done and without authority, the plaintiff’s claim against the first and second defendant is premature,” the duo alleged.

“The lack of bona fide in the plaintiff’s claim is again noted when the plaintiff failed to disclose whether any police reports, MACC, reports and/or any domestic enquiry was convened as against the third and fourth defendants on the discovery of such alleged failings,” STI and Emmanuel contended.

The duo also contended that the plaintiff was put to strict proof over the allegation of fraud or negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract as set out in the suit’s statement of claim.

When contacted by Malaysiakini this afternoon, STI and Emmanuel’s counsel Eric Clement confirmed the thrust of the statement of defence, namely that the suit’s cause of action over fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation was misconceived and misplaced, among others.

Law firm Messrs Abd Halim Ushah & Associates filed the statement of defence on behalf of STI and Emmanuel, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on June 1. - Mkini