[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today set November 17 as the tentative date to issue its decision on the RM 2 million corruption case of Tengku Adnan Mansor.
Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan set the date after hearing presentations for more than two days from attorney Tan Hock Chuan and Deputy Prosecutor Julia Ibrahim at the closing of the defense case.
He also instructed the defense and prosecution to submit their additional submissions by October 7 on the admissibility of documents related to the expenses of the 2016 Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections.
This was after Julia argued that the court should not admit the documents as evidence in court.
“Of course, I will try to give my decision on November 17. If I am limited, I will inform the parties in advance,” the judge said.
The prosecution, through its opening statement, maintained that the 2 million ringgit given to Tengku Adnan by businessman Chai Kin Kong were destined for by-elections, adding that the first had initially asked the businessman for a sum of between 5 and 6 million ringgit.
In his defense, Tengku Adnan, better known as Ku Nan, said that he did not personally benefit from Chai’s ringgit 2 million as the money was a “political donation”.
He added that he was a successful businessman before joining Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s cabinet in 2001 as a deputy minister.
Tengku Adnan was accused of receiving RM2 million from Chai, who was the director of Aset Kayamas, despite knowing that the businessman’s companies had dealings with the Ministry of Federal Territories that was under his command at the time.
A total of 23 witnesses, including Chai, testified during the impeachment stage, while the defense called four witnesses to support their case.
Earlier, Julia told the court that the supposed receipt of 2 million ringgit for the political donation was doubtful because the carbon copies had disappeared.
He added that the defense also did not call witnesses to testify whether Ku Nan issued the receipt of 2 million ringgit to Chai and why the carbon copies were not found.
Meanwhile, Tan said that the receipt was not a forged document and that Chai had been keeping the receipt with him the entire time.
The lawyer added that the prosecution did not suggest that Chai was a dishonest witness.
