The prosecution needed more time to respond to Rosmah Mansor’s application to disqualify Gopal Sri Ram as deputy public prosecutor in her RM7 million money laundering and tax evasion court case.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning then vacated today’s initially-scheduled hearing of Rosmah’s three applications linked to her case.
One bid is an application for Sri Ram to be disqualified as senior DPP in the case; the second is a fresh bid for Mohamed Zaini Mazlan to be recused as the trial judge in the case; and thirdly is a bid to stay the trial pending disposal of an appeal over Rosmah’s earlier failed bid to recuse Zaini as trial judge.
On Dec 14 last year, the High Court dismissed Rosmah’s (above) first application for Zaini to withdraw from hearing her case on alleged risk of bias and prejudice. She is currently appealing this at the Court of Appeal.
During open-court proceedings, Sri Ram informed Zaini that he only sighted the disqualification application against him this morning, as Rosmah’s legal team only served a copy on the prosecution on Monday, just before the two-day Chinese New Year public holiday.
The former federal court judge and now a lawyer in private practice said that the prosecution thus needed time to prepare submissions for the preliminary objection (PO) against the disqualification bid, among other applications.
Rosmah’s legal team, comprised of lawyer Geethan Ram Vincent among others, did not raise an objection to postponement the hearing to allow the prosecution more time to prepare a response.
The judge then set Feb 17 to hear the prosecution’s PO, as well as Rosmah’s three applications.
Zaini is not only presiding over her money laundering and tax evasion case, which has yet to go to trial, but her ongoing corruption trial linked to the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid energy project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak.
Sri Ram is the lead DPP in both criminal court cases against Rosmah.
The wife of former premier Najib Abdul Razak also previously mounted a failed legal bid to disqualify Sri Ram from prosecuting her in the solar graft trial.
Through her earlier recusal application against Zaini, Rosmah claimed there is a risk of the judge harbouring bias because he allowed the prosecution to tender her MACC cautioned statement in her solar project corruption case.
The MACC cautioned statement is in relation to the RM7 million money laundering and tax evasion case against Rosmah.
Risk of prejudice
On Oct 21 last year, during the defence stage of Rosmah’s solar project corruption trial, the judge allowed the prosecution’s application to impeach her credibility by referring to the cautioned statement she gave to MACC during an investigation into her money laundering and tax evasion case.
Through the recusal application, Rosmah contended that there is a risk of prejudice because Zaini had already sighted her MACC cautioned statement before the judge even presided over the trial of the money laundering and tax evasion case.
Via the application, Rosmah had sought another judge to hear her money laundering and tax evasion case.
Previously, the court had fixed but vacated several trial dates for the money laundering and tax evasion case due to the ongoing solar corruption case.
Rosmah faces 12 money laundering counts involving RM7,097,750 and five charges of failing to declare her income to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB).
The offences were purportedly committed at Affin Bank Berhad, Bangunan Getah Asli branch, ground Floor, 148 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur, between Dec 4, 2013, and June 8, 2017, and the IRB office at Kompleks Bangunan Kerajaan, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim, KL, between May 1, 2014, and May 1, 2018.
The money laundering charges are framed under Section 4(1) (a) of Amla, and punishable under Section 4(1) of the act, with a jail term of up to 15 years and a fine of not less than five times the value of the unlawful activity proceeds or RM5 million, whichever is higher.
The tax evasion charges under Section 77(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967, claimed that Rosmah failed to furnish returns of her income - for the 2013 to 2017 assessment years - to the IRB director-general on or before April 30, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 without reasonable excuse, in alleged contravention of Section 112 of the Act. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.