After being ACQUITTED, confidently Ahmad Maslan in Parliament admitted that he had received RM1.1 million(not RM2 million) from Najib Razak, and that he admitted this to MACC > If that be the case, then all that prosecution should have done was simply amend the charge...
Saya mengaku pada SPRM, saya terima RM1.1 juta.Saya tidak mengaku saya terima RM2 juta. Kemudian...Tuan Khoo Poay Tiong [Kota Melaka]: Kamu mengaku kamu terima.
Datuk Seri Haji Ahmad bin Haji Maslan [Pontian]: ...Tanya kepada orang yang
bagi iaitu Yang Berhormat Pekan. Yang Berhormat Pekan mengesahkan terima RM1.1...Tuan Khoo Poay Tiong [Kota Melaka]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Yang Berhormat
Pontian. Manakah wang itu datang?... [Sistem pembesar suara dimatikan]Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Yang Berhormat Kota Melaka, tolonglah.
Datuk Seri Haji Ahmad bin Haji Maslan [Pontian]: ...Sebanyak RM1.1 juta dan oleh
sebab saya telah membayar, maka saya lepas dan bebas. Itu keputusan mahkamah yang patut kita hormati dan ini disebut oleh... Source: Extract from Hansard Malaysian, page 56 Parliament, 30/9/2021,
How much he admits receiving is not the issue - the CRIME according to law is committed.
Or maybe, he never admitted to receiving the money before the acquittal...
Maybe, he is just saying this in Parliament - knowing he enjoys "parliamentary privilege'
So, will Ahmad Maslan now outside Parliament repeat what he said Parliament ...i.e. admit that he received the monies from Najib RazakParliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.
Note, the hiding of the money received by failing to declare it when filing taxes in 2014 is an important aspect in the first charge. It looks like he may not even have declared that RM1.1 million, or did he? Did he later, in 2015, 2016 - 2021, declare this income to the Income Tax? Why he did not need to be explained? If he declared that income/monies, he may be taxed and taxes goes to people of Malaysia...
Remember, his first charge:-
In the case Ahmad Maslan, the first charge was money laundering by not declaring the RM2mil he allegedly received from former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak when filing taxes for year 2013. He was charged in January 2020 under Section 4(1)(a) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 for the act which was allegedly committed on April 30,2014, at the Inland Revenue Board branch in Jalan Duta.
He was interestingly not charged for tax evasion, or for a crime under the Income Tax law - which he could have, but did not. After this 'Acquittal', he cannot again be charged for this too..
The prosecutors decided to charge him under Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful
Activities Act 2001 only.
Note, reading his charge as reported in media, one important element of the crime was the NON-DECLARATION of the RM2(or RM1.1 million) he received - why did he not declare this money? Did he know it was 'dirty' monies, and so he wanted to hide the fact that he received it? Was it simply to avoid paying taxes?
That non-declaration would also be an offence under our Income Tax laws..
302 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried again for same offence (Criminal Procedure Code)
(1) A person who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence shall, while the conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under section 166 or for which he might have been convicted under section 167.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under subsection 165(1).
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with that act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for that last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding the acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed, if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.
Maybe, one can argue that Ahmad Maslan had not been tried by Court, and that this acquittal really is about acquittal after a full trial, and as such an acquittal following a mid-trial discontinuance of proceedings by prosecution is different - i.e. he can still be charged for the same offence when he gets a mid-trial acquittal - but who will argue this if not the prosecution. But will they?
In any event, the current thinking of many is that this section 302 applies to all kinds of acquittal - acquittal after full trial, and mid-trial acquittal. I would disagree.. because it says, 'A
person who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence...' ... and Ahmad Maslan was never tried and acquitted, but simply acquitted following a mid-trial discontinuance.
302 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried again for same offence (Criminal Procedure Code)
(1) A person who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence shall, while the conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under section 166 or for which he might have been convicted under section 167.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under subsection 165(1).
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with that act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for that last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding the acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed, if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.
To date, SPRM (or MACC) have yet to confirm what Ahmad Maslan in Parliament was TRUE or FALSE. After all, he claimed he confessed to SPRM...
Here, the 2nd charge against Ahmad Maslan is important - that was about making false statements
For the second charge, he was accused of making false statements to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officials. He was charged under Section 32(8)(c) under the same Act, for the act allegedly committed in the Media Room in Parliament on July 4,2019.
That was regard a LIE made outside Parliament - in the Media Room in Parliament, not in the Dewan Rakyat.
'Compound is offered to a ‘…person
reasonably suspected of having committed the offence..’ (sec. 92 AMLA), and, in my opinion and reasonably,
such acceptance and payment is akin to an admission of guilt.'An INNOCENT MAN unlikely to accept a Compound offer, and pay it especially for charges of 'money laundering' and making 'false statements'. To pay compounds for traffic offences like speeding is different - as many a innocent person do pay simply to avoid the hassle of going to court, getting lawyers ...
Malaysians know about COMPOUNDS - it is not a FINE. If one is offered a compound, accepts it and pays it, one will not be charged in court and tried. Many have been offered Compounds from breaching laws during this Covid-19 pandemic.
In Ahmad Maslan's case, another question is whether after he had already been charged in court, could be given a Compound Offer by the MACC/Prosecutor? I believe that compound offers have to come before one is charged - not after. At that stage, it is an administrative decision - but after the matter is in court, it is disrespectful to the Judiciary and WRONG for administration(MACC/Prosecution) to offer compounds.
As such, a compound offer after one has been charged maybe wrong...and maybe even 'in contempt of court', as the matter is already before the court. [Remember compound offers by the administration happens before one is charged, for after one is charged, the matter is before the court.]
After one is charged, then the only available option is to plead guilty if one admits, and then the court will impose sentence. Fact that he had returned the 'monies' and the guilty plea would be mitigating factors...
Alternatively, Prosecution can discontinue proceedings, and the Courts can DISCHARGE the accused - no more is the accused facing a charge in court. In exceptional cases, the Court in law has the power to Acquit [I would be looking at this power to acquit, and not just Discharged in later posts. My position is that acquittal should only be available after a full evaluation of evidence by Judge at the end of trial, or after prosecution closes its case. In mid-trial discontinuance, Judge does not even have the evidence, hence he/she is incapable to do a full evaluation of facts to determine whether one is INNOCENT or GUILTY...wait for that later post]
So, maybe MACC and/or the Prosecutor could explain how Ahmad Maslan was offered a Compound since the matter was already before the court(the Judiciary)...
Was there even an a Compound Offer - or was it simply a 'deal' to discontinue proceedings?
If there was an offer for Compound - what was the offer for the 1st charge, and what was the offer for the 2nd charge.
TRUSTWORTHINESS of Ahmad Maslan may have been lost as he was charged for making 'false statements' - and he could have cleared his name if he had a full trial, and the court acquitted him. Now, it looks like he took and paid the Compound offer, which would be seen as an admission of the offence,would it not - though not a CONVICTION after full trial.
In any even, my opinion, is that we must consider abolishing COMPOUNDS for offences of corruption, money laundering, etc - these are SERIOUS CRIMES, is it not?
We must also abolish ACQUITTALS when the Prosecution discontinues mid-trial > A DISCHARGE is sufficient and just.
See earlier posts:
Public prosecutor must explain Ahmad Maslan’s acquittal, says group (Malaysian Insight)
Ahmad Maslan's acquittal raises much concern - a MADPET statement
He denied the amount was RM2 million as his previous money laundering charge alleged.
"I admitted to the MACC that I received RM1.1 million, I deny that I received RM2 million.
"I told them to ask the one who gave it to me, that is Pekan (Najib), and Pekan confirmed it was RM1.1 million," he told the Dewan Rakyat today.
Paying the compound had resulted in the money laundering charge against the Pontian MP being dropped yesterday.
The MACC had said that a settlement had previously been offered to Ahmad (above) in 2019, but the latter rejected it.
Explaining this, Ahmad said at the time the MACC compounds was multiple times the amount received.
He said a person who received RM50,000 from Najib was issued a compound 50 times that amount.
"So I fought at that time. But I saw the (court) process was taking too long," he added.
Ahmad reiterated earlier that he was a victim of unregulated political funding.
The funds he received from Najib is believed to be linked to the 1MDB scandal.
There is speculation that Ahmad resorted to a settlement to open the path for him to become a Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker.
Bersatu had rejected Ahmad's nomination on account of the money laundering charge.
It remains to be seen whether they will be swayed by yesterday's outcome. - Malaysiakini, 30/9/2021
No comments:
Post a Comment