The suit, which was filed on May 31, 2023, saw a group of 12 individuals seeking millions in damages from Vinod and his wife Winny Yeap Liew Heoh, who was named as the second defendant, alleging the duo had committed misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract....In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said that they queried Vinod on the bankruptcy matters via email on Sept 30, 2020. The latter “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that he is aligned with Anwar. The plaintiffs believe that “Anwar” refers to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.- Malaysiakini, 9/10/2025
Petra Group chairperson Vinod Sekhar portrayed a social image that he was a trustworthy member of the community due to his connections with influential people, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, said one of the 12 individuals who sued him for RM30 million. - Malaysiakini, 6/10/2025
This is a MISREPRESENTATION case - and the question that the Plaintiff need to prove is whether Vinod LIED about his 'connection' with Anwar Ibrahim - especially if that claim by Vinod led to their decision to invest monies.
THUS, the calling of Anwar is justified and needed. Did Vinod lie about his connection with Anwar? If yes, that will be MISREPRESENTATION, would it not - and the Plaintiff's chances of winning increases.
So, Anwar should go to court and TESTIFY - and tell the TRUTH? Did he know Vinod? Did Vinod lie about his 'connection' with Anwar? - THUS, what is Anwar Ibrahim AFRAID of?
YES, in court, a witness(like Anwar) will have to speak the TRUTH - if he does not, then he may be found guilty of PERJURY. He must answer truthfully all questions put to him by the Lawyers of the Plaintiff and Defendant.
WAIT - has Anwar ever been a WITNESS in any trials - where he would have to answer all questions put by the lawyers and even the Judge truthfully. In one of his SODOMY trial, I recall that Anwar chose not to testify as a witness(which means he will be subject to cross-examination by lawyers).
YES, an accused in a Criminal Trial has 3 OPTIONS - (1) Stay silent; (2) Give Sworn Evidence (Witness Stand), or Give Unsworn Statement (Dock)
In a Malaysian criminal trial, when the court calls for the defense (a prima facie case is established), the accused has three distinct options regarding their testimony:
- Give Sworn Evidence (Witness Stand): The accused takes an oath and testifies from the witness box, allowing for cross-examination by the prosecution. This carries the highest weight.
- Give Unsworn Statement (Dock): The accused speaks from the dock, which is not under oath and is not subject to cross-examination. While legal, it usually holds less weight than sworn evidence.
- Remain Silent: The accused chooses not to give any evidence. The court may draw inferences (including guilt) from this silence.
These options are offered to the accused personally, usually after legal advice, to determine the best strategy for their defense.Key Considerations for the Statement from the Dock:
- Purpose: It is a way to tell their side of the story without risking damaging evidence during cross-examination.
- Weight: Although admissible, it is generally considered inferior to sworn testimony because it is not tested by the prosecution.
- Procedure: If a written statement is used, the court will file it with the record.
BUT, this is NOT a criminal trial and Anwar is NOT the accused. He is merely a WITNESS that the Plaintiff has called to TESTIFY in court... so, here Anwar will not have the choice of staying SILENT or giving an unsworn statement from the dock(so he cannot be CROSS Examined by the other side... so, just go to Court and TESTIFY to ensure that JUSTICE is done...
SO, why is Anwar Ibrahim applying to strike out a subpoena order compelling him to testify in a suit against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap in a civil suit.
We are already disturbed with delay in Yusoff Rawther's civil suit against ANWAR - If at the end of the day, Anwar is found GUILTY of Sexual Abuse - Malaysians will NO LONGER want Anwar to be the Prime Minister > so, it is MOST important that the trial began and ended fast - BUT has still not yet started - and the reason sadly may be said to be Anwar himself...
BUT here in this VINOD's case - Anwar is just a WITNESS - an IMPORTANT witness too as his 'testimony' may be most relevant in determining whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendant wins... so Anwar must STOP delaying the trial and just attend and testify...
NOW, many are wondering WHY Anwar does not want to testify in this VINOD's trial? Is he afraid that evidence of ANWAR's own wrongdoing will emerge during the trial...
One wonders WHAT other things will Anwar raise that will allow him to escape NOT entering the witness stand and testifying???
What are the other possible justifications that Anwar can use to avoid having to take the witness stand and testify - having answer questions TRUTHFULLY by lawyers and the Judge? As a lawyer, one thing that could be considered is PTSD or some mental condition...
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a recognized reason for a witness to be excused from testifying in person, as the experience can cause extreme emotional distress, re-traumatization, or physical incapacity. Courts can acknowledge PTSD as a mental health condition that makes live testimony impossible or detrimental, potentially qualifying a witness as "unavailable" or justifying alternative arrangements under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).Reasons PTSD Affects Ability to Testify:
- Re-traumatization: The adversarial environment of a courtroom and the stress of cross-examination can force a witness to relive the trauma, causing severe psychological harm.
- Memory Impairment: PTSD affects cognitive functioning and memory, often leading to gaps in memory or an inability to recall details chronologically. This can create inconsistencies in testimony that make the witness appear untruthful.
- Emotional Volatility: Trauma can cause witnesses to be overly emotional (failure to regulate emotion) or under-emotional (using "just the facts" as a defense mechanism), both of which can lead judges or juries to perceive them as not credible.
- Physical Symptoms: Severe anxiety can manifest in physical ways, such as fainting, catatonia, or panic attacks while in court.
Alternatives and Accommodations:
If a witness cannot testify due to PTSD, courts may explore alternatives to protect them while still collecting evidence:
- Depositions: Taking testimony outside the courtroom (e.g., in a safe, quiet setting).
- Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV): Allowing the witness to testify remotely from a different room.
- Testimonial Aids: Using an intermediary or other support measures.
- Closed Courtrooms: Allowing the testimony to be heard without the public present.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has fixed June 19 to hear Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s application to strike out a subpoena order compelling him to testify in a suit against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap in a civil suit.
Lawyer Colin Perreira told Malaysiakini that Anwar’s lawyers Sanjay Mohansundram and Rodney Gan had applied for today’s proceedings to be adjourned, to give way to the application.
“I had objected to the postponement because of the late filing of the application,” said Perreira, who represents the 12 plaintiffs accusing the couple of persuading them to invest with Vinod or with his various companies without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the time.
“(However) the court postponed today’s hearing and granted new dates, which were May 4 for the plaintiffs to file their affidavit in reply, as well as May 11 for Anwar to reply to the said affidavit, and June 19 to hear the application,” Perreira said, adding that this morning’s proceedings on the RM30 million suit was held in chambers.
Initially, judicial commissioner Adam@Edward Abdullah was scheduled to continue hearing the case this week, with Anwar meant to take the stand following the subpoena order served to him in January.
However, the prime minister filed to strike out the order on April 15.
The defendants’ lawyer, Rajan Navaratnam, confirmed the new dates and said June 25 has been fixed for trial.
‘No ties to Vinod’
Anwar, in his application filed last week, claimed that it is wholly misconceived and without basis to allege that he and Vinod have a close relationship, despite being referred to as an “ally” in the defendant’s email exchange with two of the plaintiffs in 2008 and 2010.
Anwar further said there is nothing in the emails to suggest that he had any involvement in matters forming the subject of the ongoing suit.
“As a public figure and politician, I meet many individuals and have numerous supporters, and it is not uncommon for persons to refer to me in their communications.
“However, such references, without more, do not justify my being called as a witness in a suit merely because such individuals or supporters subsequently become litigants,” he said in his supporting affidavits.
Name-dropping
The plaintiffs said in their statements of claim that they queried Vinod on his supposed bankruptcy via email on Sept 30, 2020, and that the businessperson allegedly “brushed it off”.
The plaintiff claimed that Vinod appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that the defendant is aligned with the referred individual, whom they believed referred to the prime minister.
Ten out of 12 plaintiffs in the case - Ronald Barrie Clapham, Graham David Bell, Arthur J Mirante II, Charles Robert Henry Stone, Paul Sallis Benney, Paul Nicholas Smith, Octavio Augusto Vallarino Arias, Simon Hafeitz Homsany, Talbortt Gerard Young, and Uri Fruchtmann - were Vinod’s investors.
The remaining two, Andrew Murray-Watson and April Srivikorn, were his employees.
The court began hearing the case in October last year, when one of the investors, Bell, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Bell told the court that Vinod had portrayed himself as a trustworthy member of the community due to his connections with influential people, including Anwar.
He also testified that the plaintiffs lost their patience and filed the suit against Vinod and Yeap after the duo constantly failed to update them on their investment status.
However, during one proceeding, Bell agreed with Vinod’s lawyer, Rajan, that no evidence proved Vinod used Anwar’s name to solicit investment or money from him or the other plaintiffs. - Malaysiakini, 20/4/2026
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has been subpoenaed to testify as a witness in an ongoing RM30 million suit filed by 12 individuals against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Court documents sighted by Malaysiakini showed that the plaintiffs’ counsel, Messrs Goh Wong Pereira, applied for the subpoena on Jan 15.
When contacted, lawyer Colin Pereira confirmed the matter, adding that the order was served to the prime minister yesterday.
“The plaintiffs issued the subpoena to him (Anwar) to testify as their witness.
“We have served the subpoena by email, courier, and by hand to the Prime Minister’s Office, which they have acknowledged receiving,” he said.
Colin added that Anwar must testify in court when subpoenaed, unless the latter applies to set aside the order after he is served.
The counsel also confirmed that Petra Equities Sdn Bhd (PESB) chairperson Tunku Imran Tuanku Ja’afar will be testifying during the hearing scheduled today and tomorrow, presided over by judge Adam @ Edward Abdullah.
A total of 12 individuals sued Vinod and his wife in 2023 over alleged misrepresentations, fraud, and breach of contract.
Ten out of the 12 plaintiffs were Vinod’s investors – namely Graham David Bell, Arthur J Mirante II, Ronald Barrie Clapham, Charles Robert Henry Stone, Paul Sallis Benney, Paul Nicholas Smith, Octavio Augusto Vallarino Arias, Simon Hafeitz Homsany, Talbortt Gerard Young, and Uri Fruchtmann.
The remaining two plaintiffs, Andrew Murray-Watson and April Srivikorn, are Vinod’s former employees.
They claimed that Vinod had persuaded them to invest with him or with his various companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time.
Bankruptcy claims
In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said that they queried Vinod on the bankruptcy issue via email on Sept 30, 2020.
They also claimed that the latter had “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that Vinod is aligned with him, whom they believed referred to the premier.
The court began hearing the case in October last year, when one of the investors, Bell, had testified on behalf of all the other plaintiffs.
Bell told the court that Vinod had portrayed himself as a trustworthy member of the community due to his connections with influential people, including Anwar.
He also told the court that the plaintiffs had filed the suit against Vinod and Yeap after the duo constantly failed to update them on their investment status, which resulted in them losing patience.
However, during one of the proceedings, Bell had agreed with Vinod’s lawyer, Rajan Navaratnam’s suggestion that there is no evidence to prove Vinod had used Anwar’s name to solicit any kind of investment or money from him or the other 11 plaintiffs. - Malaysiakini, 22/1/2026
The KL High Court hears that businessperson Vinod Sekhar portrayed himself as a trusted member of the community due to his connections with influential people.
Graham David Bell says despite Vinod’s promises and representations that the investment was promising, his investment ultimately resulted in the disappearance of funds.
Petra Group chairperson Vinod Sekhar portrayed a social image that he was a trustworthy member of the community due to his connections with influential people, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, said one of the 12 individuals who sued him for RM30 million.
Graham David Bell, 66, said in his witness statement that this had led the plaintiffs to believe that Vinod (above) could be financially trusted and that the plaintiffs’ monies were for a genuine investment.
Bell said he had invested some US$250,000 (then RM950,000) in 2002, with the businessperson’s company, namely Petra Equities Sdn Bhd (PESB), particularly the Delink and Deprotin technologies.
However, he said that neither he nor the other foreign investors were informed of Vinod’s bankruptcy, which was declared on June 8, 2005.
“At the juncture (2021 to 2022), having considered all the media reports and the dubious responses from the first defendant (Vinod), we realised that we were victims of a fraud perpetrated by him and that he had no intention of returning any monies to us (the plaintiffs).
“The first defendant had used various excuses, such as his health problem, to deflect the plaintiff’s queries and continuously misled the plaintiffs into believing that he was a trustworthy person.
“Had I known that the first defendant was financially unstable, I would not have invested in any companies within the Petra Group or related to him,” he said in his evidence tendered in Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Bell added that despite Vinod’s promises and representations that the investment was promising, his investment ultimately resulted in the disappearance of funds.
Bell, who is a managing partner of Bridge Partners FZE, is the fourth plaintiff in the suit filed against Vinod and his wife, Winny Yeap Liew Heoh.
He is the first and only plaintiff witness in the suit, testifying in the suit’s first day of trial today, on behalf of the other plaintiffs as ordered by High Court judge Adam @ Edward Abdullah.
Bid to expunge evidence
At the end of today’s proceedings, the defendant’s lawyer, Rajan Navaratnam, orally applied to the court to have a huge chunk of Bell’s evidence expunged, on account that they are not correlated nor stated in the suit’s statement of claims.
“These are very pertinent facts (in Bell’s witness statement) which were not in the statement of claims, which means they could not have been addressed at the (defendants) statement of defence.
“Having not pleaded it (in the statement of claim) and having not addressed it at the statement of defence, I’m robbed of the opportunity to cross-examine these facts,” he said.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Colin Andrew Pereira, told the court that he was shocked by this application.
“I’ve been taken by surprise. He (Rajan) has come in prepared to object, but never gave us any (prior) notice. We have not finished our re-examination yet, so how can I even highlight these to the witness?
“He has not even completed his cross-examination, (and) I have not had the chance to re-examine, to clarify whether the issues have been pleaded or not. I’m not going to be rushed now, when he has had ample time to give (us) notice.
“With all due respect, the application is premature,” he said.
The judge then allowed Colin some time to prepare his reply against Rajan, which will be heard on Wednesday.
Earlier, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ application to amend their statement of claims and ordered all of them to pay the defendants RM5,000.
The trial continues tomorrow before Adam.
Case background
The 12 individuals filed a suit against Vinod and Yeap on May 31, 2023, seeking RM30 million in damages, inclusive of interest, from the defendants over several factors, including misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract.
They claimed that Vinod had persuaded them to invest their money with him or with various of his companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time.
In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said that they had queried Vinod on the bankruptcy matters via email on Sept 30, 2020, in which the latter “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that he is aligned with Anwar.
The plaintiffs believe that “Anwar” refers to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
They had named Yeap as the second defendant in the case in alleging her to have conspired with Vinod to perpetrate fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation against them. - Malaysiakini, 6/10/2025
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment