IT WAS AN UNBELIEVABLY CHILDISH AND IMMATURE DEFENCE

 

RULE NO 1 : NO NAMES

This is adapted from something I received via WhatsApp.

• While Prosecution led with meticulous evidence 
• Defence was clutching at straws and a fairytale
• solid money trail and defence's weak ‘documents’ busted Arab 'donation' claim
• solid money trail evidence overwhelmingly favoured the prosecution 
• court dismissed billions were donations from Arab

in anti-money laundering cases, the money trail, meticulously traced by professional analysts show funds’ origin, global movements, and final destination, is the most powerful and credible form of proof.

prosecutors built their case on exactly this. Expert testimonies from bank compliance officers, authenticated international bank statements, and SWIFT transaction records demonstrated the funds were laundered before landing in the personal account

Similar money trail evidence secured convictions abroad in Switzerland, Singapore, and the United States, including the bankers involved.

In contrast, the defence relied solely on photocopied letters purporting to confirm the Arab donation.

These lacked original documents, certified true copies, supporting witnesses, or any Arab government representation. The alleged Arab author of the letters was never called to testify.

Judge ruled the letters fake and inadmissible under the Evidence Act, finding them unreliable due to the complete absence of corroboration

to counter the prosecution's strong money trail evidence, the defence needed equivalent proof, such as verified bank records or official endorsements.

But none was provided, leaving the court with little choice but to accept the prosecution’s version. —Dec 28, 2025

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.