THE Federal Court was told today that Najib Razak’s defence had failed to cast a reasonable doubt over his guilt and should therefore remain convicted of the crimes of criminal breach of trust, money laundering, and power abuse.

Ad hoc prosecutor V. Sithambaram said the Court of Appeal judge had rightly ruled that the evidence clearly showed that Najib was aware of the origin of the RM42 million he was convicted of embezzling.

He said that the defence’s argument that Najib had honestly believed that he was entitled to deal with the funds as he saw fit was unsustainable. 

“Throughout the prosecution case, it was the defence of the appellant that Jho Low had manipulated his account, where RM42 million flowed into his accounts without his concurrence and knowledge.” said Sithambaram, referring to fugitive Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho by his popular moniker.

Sithambaram said it was obvious that this defence lacked credibility.

This, he said, was because Najib had readily admitted that he had instructed Low, Najib’s then private secretary Azlin Alias and then SRC International CEP Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil 
to ensure that his accounts had ready money to enable him to issue cheques worth millions of ringgit.

Sithambaram said the defence had been contradictory as to the source of the funds.

“It is to avoid being found committing the offences for which he has been charged. Najib’s dishonesty has been established.”

Sithambaram said it is the prosecution’s submission that the trial judge had correctly held that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Sithambaram added that Najib had dishonestly misappropriated the RM42 million for his own use, the result of which was that the ex-prime minister had earned wrongful gain for himself and caused a wrongful loss to SRC. 

On July 28, 2020, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years in prison and fined him RM210 million for having committed criminal breach of trust, money laundering, and power abuse.

The conviction and sentence were later upheld by the Court of Appeal. – August 19, 2022.