THE High Court today fixed February 15 to decide on Muhammad Shafee Abdullah’s application to expunge over half of the written witness statement of a former Inland Revenue Board (IRB) officer in relation to the lawyer’s money laundering case involving RM9.5 million.

Judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin set the date after hearing submissions from lawyer Harvinderjit Singh, who represented Shafee, and deputy public prosecutor Afzainizam Abdul Aziz.

Earlier, Harvinderjit argued that the defence found 33 of the 51 paragraphs of Syed Nasrul Fahmi Syed Mohamad’s written statement – the seventh prosecution witness – should be expunged claiming that they were unfounded and prejudicial to his client.

Syed Nasrul, was formerly IRB’s aggressive tax planning division chief assistant director (senior revenue executive I) before his service ended on February 28, 2020.

Harvinderjit said the paragraphs in the written statement read out by the seventh prosecution witness were based on opinion and hearsay alone and were not relevant to Shafee’s case.

“Part of the paragraph in the written statement is irrelevant to the charges against my client and the witness gave an opinion on the interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act whereas he is not entitled to give a legal opinion as he has no background in the field,” he said.

Afzainizam argued that Syed Nasrul had been given statutory authority to conduct an investigation into the case faced by Shafee.

“The seventh prosecution witness had made a detailed investigation into the receipt of RM9.5 million by Shafee from former prime minister Najib Razak and the witness’s written statement is based on the facts of the charge against the accused.

“The accused is taking a short cut by asking the court to expunge most of the written statement as there is no basis for him to do so,” he said, adding that the defence could challenge the testimony of the seventh prosecution witness by questioning him during the trial.

According to Afzainizam, the defence’s action in accusing the prosecution had charged the accused without a complete investigation was also unfounded.

“Even though a detailed investigation was made after the accused was charged, it was not prejudicial to him (the accused) or the prosecution was not prevented from obtaining relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the case against the accused,” he said.

On September 13, 2018, Shafee pleaded not guilty to two charges of receiving RM9.5 million, which were proceeds from unlawful activities, through two cheques issued by Najib, which were deposited into his CIMB Bank Berhad account.

He was also charged with two counts of engaging in transactions resulting from illegal activities, namely submitting incorrect tax returns, which is in violation of paragraph 113(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 for the financial years ending December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014. – Bernama, February 10, 2022.