Najib's charges vague, defective, should be quashed, says defence

Bede Hong Bede Hong Updated 5 years ago · Published on 26 Apr 2019 3:19PM · 6 Comments

Lawyers of former prime minister Najib Razak has argued that his charges in the SRC International trial should be thrown out as they are too vague. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Seth Akal, April 26, 2019.

NAJIB Razak’s lawyers have applied to strike out his seven charges relating to SRC International, arguing they are defective as they lack clarity and specificity, which would leave the former prime minister defenceless.

They submitted, for example, that Najib’s criminal breach of trust charges were defective as prosecutors did not state exactly how he had committed the offences.

Defence counsel Yusof Zainal Abiden told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today that it was insufficient for prosecutors to merely state in the charge the technical name “criminal breach of trust”.

“It does not help or enable an accused to prepare his defence effectively as it lacks specificity and therefore, it does not give the accused sufficient notice of the case that he has to meet,” he said.

Yusof said Najib is also charged as an agent, as the prime minister, finance minister and advisor emeritus of SRC International.

“In other words, the applicant was charged in three different capacities which purportedly gave rise to the allegation that he was an agent,” he told the hearing presided by Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who is also hearing the SRC International trial.

Najib, dressed in a dark grey suit, sat in the dock and appeared calm.

The arguments are part of the former prime minister’s notice of motion, seeking for an order that all seven charges against him be stayed or quashed unless amended. Najib is also applying that all proceedings in relation to the charges are stayed or adjourned until the final disposal of this motion.

Najib was charged with one offence under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, three charges of money laundering under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) and three charges criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code.

Defence counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin said the money laundering charges were vague and did not disclose the predicate offence and that they merely specified that the monies were allegedly “proceeds of unlawful activity.”

Defence lawyer Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin (right) arriving at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Seth Akmal, April 26, 2019.

“The prosecution must indicate what is the predicate offence,” Kamarul told the court.

“In this case, there are two predicate offences, namely the alleged criminal breach of trust and Section 23 of the MACC Act. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to indicate in the charges for AMLA offences the exact predicate offense.”

Kamarul further argued that Najib cannot be charged with both predicate and AMLA offences, adding it was “worse than double jeopardy”.

“As long as one is found guilty of CBT or theft or robbery, he would be… with absolutely no defence to AMLA. Can that be the intent of Parliament? Surely, not. That is not how it works in England.”

Deputy public prosecutor V. Sithambaram argued that Najib’s application to quash the seven charges unless amended “tantamount to an abuse of the court process.”

“They are citing from case laws, but not from this case,” Sithambaram told the court.

“As it stands, it is quite clear the defence has no difficulty to conduct the case as the charges stand.”

He said the motion to amend the charges as they are predicated on one another, or are defective, is unfounded.

“Section 23 cannot charge. 409 also cannot charge. In fact, nothing should be charged.”

He submitted that Najib’s application is “devoid of any merit” and asked the court to dismiss it.

Nazlan said he will deliver his judgment on Monday. – April 26, 2019.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • More delaying tactics by a desperate man.

    Posted 5 years ago by Arul Inthirarajah · Reply

  • The cunning rabbit usually keeps three burrows. PM, FM and board director, which one is that?

    Posted 5 years ago by Tanahair Ku · Reply

  • You lawyers are so good with playing with words, we the ordinary people on the streets look at it with such clarity without the tag LLB tight to us as lawyers. Just how did the said millions of dollars ended in Najib Razak the eldest son of the late second premier Tun Abdul Razak Hussein personal bank account. His own siblings has declared that they did not inherits large sum of money which I dare to say is true knowing the second premier integrity status. To say he was mislead by others is also another lame argument eg who made the millions transactions via those two credit cards, obviously when a card holder spends he/she needs to pay right? Was there any police report made that the card was stolen and was used during the said period of time again the answer is no. Which law school did you guys came from, your professors would be embarrassed to claimed you are his/her students. Hope you can come up with a better case argument over the weekend.

    Posted 5 years ago by Teruna Kelana · Reply

  • What is so difficult to understand? Illegitimate sources of income deposited in your personal account acknowledged abused and used like money grow on trees is more than sufficient to prove CBT in your capacity as PM/MoF. Even my primary kid understands this very clearly. The defence twist and turns and finding excuses will not sway the judge's decision.

    Posted 5 years ago by Justin Leno · Reply

  • I am not trained in law but common sense says the defense lawyers are throwing dirty mud hoping it will stick even though it will cause the whole house smell like shit when dried.

    Posted 5 years ago by Concerned Citizen · Reply

  • Good try Shafee but to us Rakyat Najibs corruption is as clear as an elephant in the room.

    Posted 5 years ago by Rupert Lum · Reply