PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court yesterday ruled that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak during the SRC International Sdn Bhd trail did not dispute that RM42 million had entered into his personal bank accounts.
A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat when reading out the 15-page judgment said the thrust of Najib’s defence was to challenge the mens rea element, that is, he denied knowledge that the funds were from SRC.
The top judge said, the prosecution maintained that the defence was unworthy of belief because, on the one hand, the defence maintained that the RM42 million said to have been wrongfully gained by the appellant (Najib) to the wrongful loss to SRC was not within the knowledge of the appellant.
On the other hand, the appellant also maintained that he was framed in a conspiracy hatched by fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho or Jho Low, Datuk Azlin Alias (former principal private secretary of Najib), Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil (former chief executive officer of SRC), and the bankers.
“The appellant also maintained the defence that the monies that were credited into his personal AmIslamic bank accounts, ending 880 and 906 which were the subject of the last six charges, were received from Arab Donations from Saudi Arabia.
“The respondent contended in essence, that they had always maintained at trial that these defences are completely inconsistent and diametrically opposed to one another. The respondent also referred to documentary evidence which established that the appellant had expended the RM42 million,” she said.
The Chief Justice added that the learned High Court Judge (Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali) correctly evaluated all the evidence led in relation to the defence and did not believe the defence narrative.
Tengku Maimun said the court concluded that the findings of the High Court on the defence are correct.
“In concluding that the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, we find that the learned High Court Judge had undertaken a thorough analysis of the evidence produced by the defence.
“Thus, we are unable to conclude that any of the findings of the High Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal were perverse or plainly wrong so as to warrant appellate intervention. We agree that the defence is so inherently inconsistent and incredible that it does not raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case,” the chief justice said.
-Bernama
