[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR (Bernama): The lawyers defending Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor in his corruption case told the High Court here on Wednesday (September 23) that the official Umno receipt for RM2mil issued to Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong does not it was a forged document.
Datuk Tan Hock Chuan, who heads the defense team, said that the prosecution’s suggestion that Umno’s official receipt was a forgery was totally untenable, as it had always been in the possession of Chai, director of Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd ( AKSB).
“It is undisputed that my client received the check from Tan Sri Chai, who is also the 19th prosecution witness (SP19) a few days before the Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar by-elections that were held on June 18, 2016 Tan Sri Chai received the official receipt from Umno around June 14, 2016, ”Tan said, adding that it was an original receipt and always in Chai’s possession.
He said that Chai in his evidence had said that the receipt issued by Umno was kept in his wallet.
Tan, who made the argument at the end of the defense case, claimed that Chai, the star prosecution witness, was a truthful and reliable witness.
“There is no suggestion from the prosecution that Tan Sri Chai was dishonest and false. His evidence was clear and consistent,” said the lawyer.
Tan further said that during the questioning of the defendant (Tengku Adnan), the prosecution suggested that the receipt was a forged document.
“The prosecution suggested that the serial number 376241 (the receipt) of the RM2mil dated June 14, 2016 was an anomaly. The prosecution also suggested that, since the defendant was arrested on November 14, 2018, the following number receipt 376242 was dated November 16, 2018, ”he said, adding that all these suggestions were denied by his client.
The lawyer said that Umno’s receipt issued to Chai for the check was given to Umno as a political donation for expenses in the Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar by-elections.
It said that another prosecution witness, Farahdzilah Abd Kadir (SP21), deputy head of the Financial Management Department at the Umno headquarters at the Putra World Trade Center (PWTC), had testified that the official Umno receipt and receipt book were used random and receipt The book was available to many parties.
“This could explain why the dates on the receipt book did not follow the sequence,” Tan said.
He argued that Farahdzilah’s evidence was supported by the defendant, saying that in practice, official Umno receipts would be issued for donations received by Umno.
Tan said that based on the testimony of Tengku Adnan’s witness, he said that if the donation was made to the Umno state, the receipt would be handled by the Umno state, not the Umno headquarters.
He said that official Umno receipt stubs were generally kept at party headquarters.
“Tengku Adnan said that the Finance Department and Administration Department staff at Umno headquarters had access to those official receipt stubs. There is no strict control of official receipt stubs, so the rest of the staff also had access to those official receipt stubs “, so additional.
It also maintained that when the defendant received the RM2mil check from Chai on June 14, 2016, it was very close to the date of the by-elections, June 18, 2016.
“It stands to reason that Tan Sri Chai received the official receipt from Umno on or about June 14, 2016,” he said, adding that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the official receipt from Umno was a forged document.
Tengku Adnan, 69, also known as Ku Nan, was accused in his capacity as a civil servant, that is, the then Minister of Federal Territories, of having accepted for himself RM2mil from Chai through a check from the Islamic Bank of Hong Leong belonging to AKSB, which was subsequently deposited into the CIMB Bank account of Tadmansori Holdings in which he had an interest, when it emerged that Aset Kayamas was related to his official duties.
The crime was allegedly committed at the Pusat Bandar Damansara branch of CIMB Bank Berhad, here, on June 14, 2016.
The Putrajaya MP was charged under section 165 of the Penal Code, which provides for a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both, if convicted.
On October 14 last year, the Superior Court ordered him to present his defense on the charge after finding that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case in the case.
Tengku Adnan chose to testify under oath from the witness stand when the defense proceedings began on January 17 and finished giving his testimony on March 5.
The hearing continues before Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan.- Bernama
[ad_2]
