Najib’s SRC appeal: SRC a sham

- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

SRC International’s investment plans were only on paper and nothing had come to fruition.

The sham was further proven when Najib himself admitted in court that nothing of SRC International’s purported investment had transpired.

The 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd was a sham, said ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram in his submissions before the Court of Appeal.

“It is all (only) on paper. But there is nothing to show for it. Nothing,” he said today.

During the heated rebuttal for today’s appeal hearing, Sithambaram said there was no definite proof that some RM3.8 billion credited out of SRC International to Switzerland in 2012 were ever used for its intended purpose in renewable energy sector investments.

SRC International previously obtained two loans totalling RM4 billion from KWAP through two Government Guarantees that Najib had signed off on as prime minister and finance minister during two Cabinet meetings held in August 2011 and February 2012.

Sithambaram said the sham was further proven when Najib himself admitted in court during cross-examination that nothing of SRC International’s purported investment had transpired at the time he was in public office and even refused to take responsibility for the alleged failure of SRC International.

“The appellant himself admits nothing had happened but put the (blame) on the SRC International’s board (of directors) head.

“They have to show the money was used for investment purposes.


“I’m saying the whole thing is a sham, nothing has happened,” he said, adding that he found it strange that the money for renewable energy investment was instead deposited in fixed deposits of a Swiss bank.

Justice Abdul Karim: You are saying the whole thing is a sham, that the setting up of SRC International is a sham?

Sithambaram: No, the setting up of the company is not a sham but the investments are.

Justice Abdul Karim: So, it is a sham to cover the real intention?

Sithambaram: Yes. If the company (SRC) really did the investments and had millions in profits or 100% profits, you still cannot take RM42 million for your own use.

He added that had SRC International – which was described as a “RM2 company” – been successful in its proposed plans in renewable energy, he would have been proud of that achievement.

As Sithambaram was submitting, Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh then stood up to voice his disagreement.

This then prompted Abdul Karim to interject the ongoing hearing.

“Order, order. I am asking the question, he (Sithambaram) is responding to me. You will have time to respond,” said Abdul Karim as he reprimanded Harvinderjit for attempting to disrupt Sithambaram’s submission.

Allowed to resume his submission, Sithambaram informed the court that the prosecution had faced “objections” throughout the trial in the High Court.

“I stand here making a submission for the prosecution. I’ve got nothing personal. But he shouldn’t shut me up. Your Lordship can shut me up,” Sithambaram said.

The other judges on the panel are Justices Has Zanah Mehat and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

On July 28 last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court sentenced Najib to 10 years’ jail on each of the three counts of CBT as well as each of the three counts of money laundering.

Najib, 68, is currently out on bail of RM2mil in two sureties pending appeal.

The appeal hearing continues.

Earlier reports:

Apr 14, Najib’s SRC appeal: Najib had total control of SRC

Apr 14, Najib’s SRC appeal: SRC acted in Najib’s interest, not government’s

Apr 13, Najib’s SRC appeal: Defence claims High Court judge had “desire” to hold Najib to account

Apr 8, Najib’s SRC appeal: Judge reminds Najib’s lawyer not to repeat points already raised

Apr 7, Najib’s SRC appeal: Defence blames Jho Low for transfer of RM42m from SRC

Apr 6, Shafee in appeal: Judge in Najib’s SRC trial erred