Muhammad Shafee Abdullah will know on Oct 28 whether he walks free or needs to answer the money laundering case against him involving RM9.5 million received from former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court today fixed the date for a decision at the end of the prosecution’s case regarding the four money laundering charges against the lawyer.
Trial judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin set the verdict at 9am on Oct 28, after having heard oral submissions by deputy public prosecutor Afzainizam Abdul Aziz and the accused’s defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh and Farhan Read.
Shafee was first charged in court on Sept 13, 2018, and the trial began on May 21, 2021.
The prosecution closed its case against the lawyer on May 12 this year after having called eight prosecution witnesses.
Shafee is facing two charges of receiving money amounting to RM9.5 million, purportedly from illegal activities, through two cheques issued by Najib, which were deposited into his CIMB Bank Bhd account.
The lawyer is also facing two counts of engaging in transactions resulting from illegal activities, namely submitting incorrect tax returns and in violation of Paragraph 113(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 for the financial years ending Dec 31, 2013, and Dec 31, 2014.
Charges defective, counsel claims
Meanwhile during oral submissions this morning, Harvinderjit contended that the RM9.5 million was money received for legitimate service rendered by Shafee for Najib for 46 election petitions linked to BN and Umno.
Najib used to be the BN chairperson and Umno president.
The defence counsel submitted that the four criminal charges were defective as it was worded in such a way that did not disclose actual money laundering offences.
Harvinderjit claimed as an example that the third and fourth charges dealt with alleged misreporting of income to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB), and yet the prosecution labelled them as money laundering offences.
The lawyer contended it is because these charges do not state physical money or any specific asset prerequisite for a money laundering offence.
However, Afzainizam countered that the criminal charges are not only properly drafted, but that the crux of the prosecution’s case was that Shafee actually initially tried to conceal from IRB that the lawyer received RM9.5 million as income.
The prosecutor contended that the accused did this by buying a bungalow valued at RM9.3 million and spending the RM200,000 on other things.
Back on Oct 23, 2017, PKR lodged a report with MACC over the alleged inconsistent version of events over the RM9.5 million that was paid to Shafee.
After being charged in court in September 2018, Shafee told the media that the RM9.5 million was for working on the BN and Umno election petitions, while also denying he ever said he received the money for his role in prosecuting opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
The lawyer was referring to 2013 when he was appointed a special prosecutor in PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy trial which eventually saw him being jailed for five years.
However, Anwar was pardoned following the 14th general election in 2018.
Inconsistent statements
In the prosecution’s opening statement on the first day of trial, Afzainizam contended that Shafee gave inconsistent versions of the purpose of the RM9.5 million that the accused received.
The DPP claimed in his statement to the MACC officer recorded pursuant to Section 30(3)(b) of the MACC Act 2009 on July 28, 2017, that Shafee said the money in question was as a fee.
Afzainizam pointed out that in a further statement recorded from the accused under the same provision on Sept 11, 2018, Shafee said that on Sept 5, 2013, he and Najib agreed that the money in question was to be a loan to the accused pending rationalisation of the fee already payable to him.
The prosecutor argued that in a written press statement dated Sept 8, 2018, and signed by him, Shafee said the payment of RM9.5 million was fees due to him pending the rationalisation of the paperwork as agreed to by Najib. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.