[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court ruled that the 2 million ringgit awarded by Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong to Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (pix) had remained on his Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd (THSB) account for his benefit and that he had used the company as a front to receive the proceeds of his crime.
Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, in his 87-page sentence, said there was no evidence to show that Tengku Adnan had withdrawn money from the THSB account to pay for the expenses of the 2016 Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections, including if the court did not accept that Datuk Rizalman Mokhtar and Datuk Zakaria Dullah had received cash from the defendants.
Rizalman was appointed Chief of Operations for the Sungai Besar by-election at the time, while Zakaria was the coordinator of the Barisan Nasional (BN) youth volunteer project.
Judge Mohamed Zaini said that Tengku Adnan allegedly advanced just over RM2 million because the by-elections were an afterthought.
“However, therefore, it is established that the defendant used the Tadmansori as a front to receive the fruits of his crime,” said the judge, who sentenced Tengku Adnan to 12 months in jail and a fine of RM2 million, failing that. six months in jail. after he was found guilty on a corruption charge for receiving RM2 million from a businessman in 2016.
The judge said that Tengku Adnan did not at all prove the source of the cash that he allegedly gave Rizalman and Zakaria.
“He claimed to have given them cash. He claimed that he had asked Tan Sri Chai to pay Tadmansori, as he had advanced his own money.
“If this is the case, then you should be able to show withdrawals from Tadmansori’s bank account. There were none. The defendant offered no explanation.
“There was no proof of the source of the cash that he allegedly gave Rizalman and Zakaria. It is crucial to prove that the cash that he allegedly forked first came from Tadmansori’s bank account to justify his instructions to Tan Sri Chai to make the check payable to Tadmansori. In my opinion, the defendant had pocketed the 2 million ringgit for himself, ”he said.
The judge said the court could not accept that Tengku Adnan was the sole fundraiser for the two by-elections, as these two districts were not in his domain as president of the BN / UMNO of Federal Territories.
“Also, he was not the treasurer as claimed. I am also not willing to accept testimonials from Rizalman and Zakaria, including submitted budget sheets.
“In my opinion, their testimonies were fabricated after the event, in an attempt to muffle Tengku Adnan’s defense. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew that he would receive RM2 million from Tan Sri Chai, ”he added.
The judge further said that the former minister of Federal Territories had maintained that he was a man of resources.
“I accept the assertion of the defendant that he did not intend to brag in stating his worth and that he simply wanted to assert that the RM2 million was not an amount that would attract him. The RM2 million, in my opinion, is a substantial amount of money, even for a millionaire. It is a fallacy to think that a rich person is incapable of making a mistake to obtain economic benefits, “he added.
Judge Mohamed Zaini said that the receipt from UMNO alone cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof that the 2 million RM was a political donation.
“I have serious reservations about receiving UMNO for various reasons. First of all, I find it incredible that Tan Sri Chai did not believe that it was crucial to inform MACC officials of the existence of the UMNO receipt when he appeared before them several times for these statements to be taken, ”he said.
The judge said that the receipt issued prior to the UMNO receipt (receipt number 376240) was dated November 12, 2018, and the next one (receipt number 376242) was dated November 16, 2018.
However, the judge said that the UMNO receipt in question was June 14, 2016.
“All the other receipts on that receipt book were in sequence, except for the UMNO receipt. The first receipt for the book was dated August 24, 2017 and the last one on May 6, 2019. UMNO’s receipt was obviously the only one out of sequence, ”he said.
Explaining more about the UMNO receipt, Judge Mohamed Zaini said it was pointless for UMNO to issue the receipt when the check was not deposited into his account.
“If the money was intended for UMNO, the latter could have given Tan Sri Chai or Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd (AKSB), any other form of acknowledgment of the supposed donation, like a letter, for example, and not a receipt. Any auditor auditing the UMNO accounts would question the receipt from UMNO, as there was no payment of RM2 million to the UMNO account, ”he said.
The judge said that the defendants’ claim that the payment was for the benefit of UMNO could only be accepted if there was a corresponding payment to UMNO from Tadmansori.
“There were none. The money trail stopped with Tadmansori. In fact, the evidence shows that Tadmansori has never had dealings with UMNO. This was established by Tadmansori’s own employees, ”he added.
The judge said Tengku Adnan regretted that the charge against him was irrelevant and was a ploy by rivals UMNO and BN to defeat them by targeting him.
“The defendant’s complaint is not new. He is not the first politician accused of a crime and denounced for political conspiracy. He would only need to go back to the 1970s. The late Datuk Harun Idris, a well-known politician, who was then the Chief Minister of Selangor and a rising star in the ranks of UMNO, was charged with two others for forgery for the purpose of criminal cheating and breach of trust. “he said.
Meanwhile, in sentencing Tengku Adnan, Judge Mohamed Zaini said that the defendant was not the first high-ranking official and politician to be charged and convicted under article 165 of the Penal Code.
“I do not doubt that the defendant has served the nation for many years, and that is a criterion that I have taken into consideration. However, the most important consideration in deciding the appropriate sentence is the public interest. The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the crime committed.
“When passing a sentence, the court must, among others, follow the precedents. This is to ensure uniformity in sentencing and avoid disparity that will only serve to send the wrong message to the public, “added the judge. – Called
[ad_2]
