YES, in the Najib's SRC case, the prosecution have finished their case... and now will be the time when the Court will decide whether Najib will be acquited, OR whether he needs to now enter his DEFENCE (i.e. call his own witnesses, submit his evidence, etc..)
Has the prosecution submitted enough evidence to to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Najib is guilty?
It is a well-established principle of Malaysian criminal law that the general burden of proof lies throughout the trial on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged. There is no similar burden placed on the accused to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocence until proven guilty. To earn an acquittal, his duty is merely to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case...To earn an acquittal at the close of the case for the prosecution under s. 173(f) or s. 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court must be satisfied that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction (Munusamy v. PP ). If defence is called, the duty of the accused is only to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. He is not required to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. - kes Mohamad Radhi bin Yaakob v. Public Prosecutor
It therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under s. 180 of the Code has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and ask himself the question: If I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution case? If the answer is in the negative then no prima facie case has been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal. - Gopal Sri Ram HMR (pada ketika itu) menyentuh isu yang sama dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [2003]
So, we shall see what the Judge decides on November 11?
Remember that one may have committed the crime - but then the Prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convince the Judge...
What will that HIGH COURT Judge independently decide - yes, independently without any interference from anyone?
SRC International: Najib to know by Nov 11 if he has to answer corruption charges
Nation
Wednesday, 23 Oct 2019 5:47 PM MYT
By NURBAITI HAMDAN
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will deliver its decision in the case of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is accused of misappropriating RM42mil in SRC International funds on Nov 11.
Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali thanked both the prosecution and the defence for their comprehensive oral presentations at the end of a two-day submission here on Wednesday (Oct 23).
Earlier, the court heard submissions from Najib's lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who said his client could not be said to have had dominion, as he did not have the power to dispose of any asset belonging to the company.
The lawyer was rebutting the prosecution’s argument that Najib was the “shadow director” of the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) subsidiary.
On Tuesday (Oct 22), Attorney General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas submitted that Najib was SRC’s shadow director who benefited financially from its coffers.
Shafee said the prosecution had relied on Section 402A of the Penal Code, which mentioned the part of a "director", and this included a shadow director.
Section 402A was introduced into the Penal Code in 1993 through an amendment in the law.
“This amendment to incorporate shadow director is yet another attempt to make a person who is not a director, but liable as a director, ” he said here on Wednesday.
Shafee also submitted that Najib had neither dishonesty nor had dishonest intention and maintained that his client had no knowledge that the money came from illegal sources.
He urged the court to acquit Najib of all the charges.
“This is a case that Your Honour should not call for the defence purely to satisfy the curiosity of what he (Najib) is going to say.
"You don't call for the defence just to know what is he going to say," Shafee added.
Shafee’s submission wrapped up the two-day submission in the prosecution’s case.
Najib is facing seven charges, of which three are for criminal breach of trust, one for abuse of power and three for money laundering involving SRC International funds totalling RM42mil. - Star, 23/10/2019
Nation
Tuesday, 22 Oct 2019 12:45 PM MYT
By NURBAITI HAMDAN
KUALA LUMPUR: The defence in the SRC International trial involving Datuk Seri Najib Razak (pic) submitted to the High Court that the former prime minister should be acquitted of the seven charges he is facing in relation to the misappropriation of SRC International's RM42mil.
Lawyer
Harvinderjit Singh, who is representing the Pekan MP, argued that the
prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against his client.
"The defence ultimately submits that no prima facie case has been made out on all the charges and an order of acquittal as provided for in Section 180(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be recorded," he said here during submissions on Tuesday (Oct 22).
Harvinderjit further submitted that the bulk of evidence relating to Najib's involvement in the events between 2010 and 2012 – leading up to and including the government's decision to grant the government guarantees to SRC International and Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) providing SRC International with loans amounting to RM4bil – did not establish the existence of a corrupt arrangement which Najib could be said to be a party to.
"The bulk of evidence in fact leads to reasonable inferences
that the transactions involving the RM42mil were carried out without
Najib's knowledge and involvement and the impetus and purpose was
unconnected to any act by Najib," Harvinderjit added.
The lawyer said the evidence led to a reasonable inference that the transactions involving RM42mil were actually done at the behest of others for their own ulterior purpose and benefit.
"The conclusion there is that the RM42mil cannot be said to amount to 'gratification' as consideration for a use of office of position by Najib," he said.
Najib is facing seven charges, of which three are for criminal breach of trust, one for abuse of power and three for money laundering involving SRC International funds totalling RM42mil.
Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali presided over the trial which spanned over 57 days, with 57 witnesses called to testify. - Star, 22/10/2019
"The defence ultimately submits that no prima facie case has been made out on all the charges and an order of acquittal as provided for in Section 180(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be recorded," he said here during submissions on Tuesday (Oct 22).
Harvinderjit further submitted that the bulk of evidence relating to Najib's involvement in the events between 2010 and 2012 – leading up to and including the government's decision to grant the government guarantees to SRC International and Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) providing SRC International with loans amounting to RM4bil – did not establish the existence of a corrupt arrangement which Najib could be said to be a party to.
The lawyer said the evidence led to a reasonable inference that the transactions involving RM42mil were actually done at the behest of others for their own ulterior purpose and benefit.
"The conclusion there is that the RM42mil cannot be said to amount to 'gratification' as consideration for a use of office of position by Najib," he said.
Najib is facing seven charges, of which three are for criminal breach of trust, one for abuse of power and three for money laundering involving SRC International funds totalling RM42mil.
Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali presided over the trial which spanned over 57 days, with 57 witnesses called to testify. - Star, 22/10/2019
AG: Najib was SRC’s ‘shadow director’
- Nation
-
Wednesday, 23 Oct 2019
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is accused
of misappropriating RM42mil from SRC International Sdn Bhd, was its
“shadow director” who benefited financially from its coffers, the High
Court heard.
Attorney General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas submitted
before the court that the former prime minister was entrusted with
dominion over the property of SRC and therefore had an interest over the
company.
“The interest that
the accused had in SRC was camouflaged in smoke and mirrors, behind the
guise of missing persons and questionable characters.
“However,
the facts indicate that it was the accused and his proxies that pulled
the strings behind the curtain of SRC, ” Thomas said on the first day of
a two-day submission at the end of the prosecution’s case in the SRC
trial here yesterday.
He questioned the willingness of Najib’s administration in
pulling out all the stops to assist the subsidiary of 1Malaysia
Development Bhd.
“Why was the government so interested and
pulled all the strings to assist SRC, a newly established company with
no track record, barely 12 months into operation, and so keen to
facilitate a RM2bil loan followed by a second RM2bil loan within eight
months of each other to SRC?
“The inescapable conclusion must point to the interest of the accused in SRC, ” Thomas added.
The AG also said that SRC’s constitution gave Najib the powers of “hire” and “fire”, making him the ultimate decision maker.
“Nothing of importance could be decided by SRC without the input of the accused, and none were, ” Thomas said.
Ad
hoc prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram said that despite being “shocked”
over the RM42mil in his personal bank account, Najib did not take any
action.
He submitted that the accused’s reaction on finding out
that monies had been paid into his account was nothing more than a drama
as he had actually utilised the RM42mil sitting in his account.
“If
the accused was innocent of this sum of RM42mil, he should have sued
the bank for unlawful deposit of the said sum which may well amount to
his account being used for money laundering.
“The shock that the
accused suffered should have translated into a police report being
lodged, to show his outrage of unauthorised monies being paid into his
account. He should have hounded the police to investigate the case which
caused him his reputation, ” he said.
None of these simple
steps were taken, said Sithambaram, adding that it only showed the
accused’s present cry of innocence could not be true.
Meanwhile,
Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh argued that his client should be
acquitted of the charges against him on grounds that the prosecution had
failed to establish a prima facie case.
He said the bulk of
evidence relating to Najib’s involvement in the events between 2010 and
2012 – leading up to and including the government’s decision to grant
the government guarantees to SRC and Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP)
providing SRC with loans amounting to RM4bil – did not establish the
existence of a corrupt arrangement which Najib could be said to be a
party to.
Harvinderjit also contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the RM42mil truly belonged to SRC.
“The
evidence fell short of establishing that the RM42mil depicted in the
criminal breach of trust charges was indeed funds belonging to SRC. In
any event, the evidence did not establish any specific entrustment or
dominion over the RM42mil by Najib, ” he said.
Najib is facing
seven charges, of which three are for criminal breach of trust, one for
abuse of power and three for money laundering involving SRC
International funds totalling RM42mil.
The submission before Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali resumes today. - Star, 23/10/2019
No comments:
Post a Comment