DEBUNKED

Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 56

August 22, 2019

1909

- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

Witness says Najib, and not Jho Low, benefitted from SRC money.

9.20am: Defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh is seen entering the court and preparing for proceedings.

However, the former premier is not in court, as he and most of the defence team are attending a mention of his RM2.28 billion 1MDB case before Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah.

Deputy public prosecutor Suhaimi Ibrahim and other members of the prosecution team are also seen in Nazlan’s court.

9.48am: Najib Razak enters the court and takes a seat at the front row of the public gallery.

9.59am: Najib enters the dock as proceedings begin.

10am: The hearing commences with the prosecution’s last witness, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigating officer Rosli Husain, taking the stand.

Harvinderjit begins his cross-examination. He is verifying when Rosli had interviewed witnesses, and for how long.

10.10am: Rosli testifies that he took the initiative to get AmBank to refer to the MACC first before allowing Najib to access his bank documents.

“I did not refer to any act. It was my own initiative,” he says.

Rosli testifies that a bank officer by the name of Nazarudin (full name not given) informed him about Najib’s lawyers attempting to get access to the documents.

He says he informed Nazarudin earlier this year that the bank need not refer to MACC first.

In previous proceedings, the defence complained that MACC had prevented them from accessing his AmBank documents. The agency has since then allowed the former premier access.

10.23am: DPP V Sithambaram and Harvinderjit verbally spar in court over the admissibility of a printed document from the SPRM Insider website.

Sithambaram says the prosecution objects because the authenticity of the printouts, which purportedly show minutes of MACC investigation papers, cannot be determined.

Harvinderjit wants to ask Rosli questions about the documents.

“Until the admissibility and relevancy of the document are shown under law, then no reference can be made to them. I have not seen this document.

“Need to determine if they had been doctored or not, where they came from, we do not know (at this juncture),” Sithambaram says.

The prosecutor says if this is allowed, then the defence could go on a fishing expedition.

Harvinderjit counters that among other questions, he is merely asking the witness whether these documents exist.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali allows Harvinderjit to only ask Rosli whether the document is genuine.

10.30am: Rosli agrees with Harvinderjit that the MACC probe into SRC seemed to show more than RM300 million flowed into Najib’s AmBank account ending with the number ‘694’.

Rosli agrees with Harvinderjit that he investigated the account in 2011, and that there was an apparent inflow of money from Saudi royal Prince Faisal Turki.

Harvinderjit: Can you confirm that there was an inflow of money from Prince Faisal Turki?

Rosli: Yes.

When Harvinderjit asks if the amount was more than RM300 million, Rosli says it was roughly that amount.

Harvinderjit: The inflow of money into the account was from the Finance Ministry in Riyadh?

Rosli: Yes.

Harvinderjit: It was given from Saudi Arabia?

Rosli: Yes.

10.45am: Harvinderjit attempts to pressure Rosli over the authenticity of Najib’s signatures on banking documents tendered as evidence.

However, the witness testifies that he takes it that the papers are originals, as they were produced by AmBank.

Rosli, however, agrees he is not an expert in signature analysis and that he did not send the documents to the Chemistry Department for tests.

He also agrees that he never investigated whether the documents were originals, and that he did not order his officers who interviewed Najib to ask about their authenticity.

11.20am: The court takes a short break.

11.43am: Proceedings resume.

12.05pm: Harvinderjit is still verifying how Rosli obtained documents and whether they are originals or photocopies.

12.25pm: Harvinderjit zooms in on documents taken by MACC from SRC company secretary Chee Suwen and its former board of directors’ chairperson Ismee Ismail.

In what appears to be an attempt to poke holes in the prosecution’s case, Harvinderjit starts questioning Rosli on the authenticity of the documents, and whether there were efforts to investigate whether these had been forged.

The documents in question are minutes from SRC’s board meetings and a directors’ circular resolution.

These include a series of documents provided by Ismee to MACC, which contain the minutes of an alleged meeting between Najib and SRC director Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil on Sept 7, 2011.

Rosli agrees to a suggestion by the lawyer that no other SRC directors or company secretary had confirmed the authenticity of the papers.

According to his testimony, MACC investigators did not refer the minutes to the other directors during the recording of their statements.

The minutes were also not referred to Najib when he was questioned by MACC.

Rosli, however, disagrees to a suggestion by Harvinderjit that the minutes could have been forged.

12.36pm: Harvinderjit puts it to Rosli that MACC and the prosecution have given the representation that the money in Najib’s accounts was from SRC, originating from its Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP) loans.

Harvinderjit asks Rosli whether he investigated the RM170 million going into the Putra Perdana development in July and August 2014. Rosli says he did.

Harvinderjit asks whether Rosli saw any document indicating that the sum was a loan. Rosli says no.

12.55pm: Rosli tells the court that the MACC probe into SRC did not reveal any benefit to Jho Low.

Harvinderjit poses a series of suggestions to Rosli – including that Najib was not involved in the transactions which eventually led to RM42 million ending up in his AmBank accounts.

However, Rosli replies to all suggestions in the negative.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that the BlackBerry chats in P578 and D650 show that the person who misappropriated SRC’s money was actually Low?

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that the BlackBerry chats show that Low had taken the effort to ensure Najib was not informed of transactions involving his accounts ending with the numbers ‘880’, ‘906’ and ‘898’?

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that the chats also show that Low had ordered (former SRC CEO) Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil to sign the (banking) documents.

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that Low was also in control of Putra Perdana Construction and Permai Binaraya accounts through (Putrajaya Perdana Bhd director) Jerome Lee.

Rosli: I disagree, My Lord.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that these chats show that Low was the one who actually tried to get the money from the accounts ‘880’, ‘898’ and ‘906’ when the accounts went into overdrawn position?

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that the chats in P578 and D650 will show that Low was in control of withdrawal of money from SRC accounts through (former director) Terence Geh.

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that based on the chats, they show that Low had misled the bank on sources of the money that were deposited into ‘880’, ‘906’ and ‘898’ accounts?

Rosli: I disagree.

Harvinderjit: I put it to you that these chats show that the transactions that are central of these charges (against Najib) were committed by Low for his own interest?

Rosli: Disagree.

Harvinderjit: By disagreeing, you mean what? You did not investigate these, right?

Rosli: Because my investigation found that there was no benefit for Low.

1pm: Rosli agrees with Harvinderjit that his investigation did not find any communication between Low, Faisal and Najib.

Proceedings then adjourn for lunch.

2.41pm: Proceedings resume after the lunch break.

2.42pm: Harvinderjit continues his cross-examination.

3.02pm: Harvinderjit asks Rosli about transactions that Low and Terence Geh were involved in. Rosli says he is not sure about those transactions.

3.30pm: Rosli testifies that former SRC director Suboh Md Yassin had sought MACC help to seek refuge at the Pullman Hotel.

He tells lawyer Harvinderjit what transpired when Suboh returned from Indonesia last May.

Rosli: On May 27, 2018, for the recording of statement, we (MACC) brought (Suboh) to Pullman Hotel. MACC paid for the hotel stay.

Harvinderjit: So this is like kurung (house arrest)?

Rosli: He (Suboh) asked for safe refuge (penginapan selamat).

3.32pm: Rosli says Suboh’s statement was taken six times, with the first in Abu Dhabi. He says he felt uncomfortable taking Suboh’s statement with a lawyer present.

He says he had doubts about the statement Suboh gave in Abu Dhabi. In the next room, says Rosli, Jho Low was also getting his statement taken, with his lawyer present.

3.35pm: When Suboh returned to Malaysia, Rosli instructed his officers to take Suboh’s statement again, and this time, he did not participate in the matter, the court hears.

Rosli says he wanted to see if Suboh’s testimony matched what the latter had said in Abu Dhabi.

The defence goes on the offensive, suggesting that Rosli coerced Suboh to change his statement to investigators last year.

Harvinderjit brings up Suboh’s testimony earlier in the trial.

Suboh had concurred that his signatures on 17 banking instructions by SRC to AmBank between 2014 and 2015 could have been forged.

Harvinderjit asks Rosli why Suboh had given conflicting statements to MACC.

The lawyer says that in May 2018, Suboh told the MACC that he did not sign the Rentas forms for SRC shown to him – but changed his story when his statement was recorded again in August that year.

“Suboh said that he did not get the chance to look at the documents closely. Who pressured him to change his statement?” Harvinderjit asks.

Rosli explains, at length, the circumstances surrounding the recording of Suboh’s statement in Abu Dhabi in 2015, and his health condition upon returning from Indonesia in on May 27, 2018.

After a few minutes, Harvinderjit cuts Rosli off, saying that he had deviated from answering the question.

Rosli raises his voice, and asks whether the lawyer wants to hear his answer or not.

The lawyer then tries to cool things down before continuing with his questions.

3.50pm: The court hears from Rosli that the person who benefited from SRC was Najib.

Rosli says this when answering a suggestion by Harvinderjit that Jho Low and his business partners were those who had benefited from the company.

“Low has no benefit in this case. The one who has is Najib,” Rosli says in a stern tone.

This is Harvinderjit’s second attempt today to suggest that Najib had nothing to do with alleged misappropriation of money from the company.

4.34pm: Rosli agrees with Harvinderjit’s assertion that Najib’s RM3.2 million credit card spend at Grisono in 2014 is not among his seven charges.

Harvinderjit: On the RM3.2 million credit card spending at Grisono in Aug 2014, you agree that it is not the core subject matter of the charges in this case?

Rosli: Yes, but that money was the result of money transferred from Putra Perdana Construction to Permai Binaraya.

When Harvinderjit suggests again that this is not the subject matter of the charges, Rosli agrees.

4.40pm: Court is adjourned and will resume at 9.30am tomorrow.

Earlier reports:

Aug 20, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 55

Aug 19, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 54

Aug 14, SRC Trial Postponed as Najib Down with Sore Eyes

Aug 13, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 52

Aug 9, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 51

Aug 7, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 50

Aug 6, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 49

Aug 5, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 48