|COVID–19 NEWS||14-day compulsory quarantine for individuals entering Sabah | COVID: 17 mosques, suraus in Perak closed - JAIPk | COVID: Seven oil and gas workers among 512 new infections in Sarawak | Dr Noor Hisham urges Malaysians to practise self-discipline as COVID cases rise | COVID: Health Minister observes preparations at UiTM Hospital ||
PUTRAJAYA, April 22 -- The appeal hearing of former Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor against his conviction and sentence for accepting a bribe of RM2 million from a businessman has completed at the Court of Appeal here, today.
Initially, the court has fixed three days beginning today to hear Tengku Adnan's appeal, however the proceedings which started at 9.55 am and ended at 12.52 pm after counsel Datuk Tan Hock Chuan, representing Tengku Adnan as appellant and deputy public prosecutor Asmah Musa finished their submissions.
However, the court has reserved its decision to a date yet to be fixed on Tengku Adnan, 70, or better known as Ku Nan's appeal.
A three-member bench led by Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Suraya Othman said the court would take time to consider the matter and would inform the parties once they were ready with the decision date.
"We thanked the parties for their submissions. After deliberating, we decided we need some time to do a bit research before we come to make our decisions. We will inform the parties on the date of the decision," she said.
The other two judges on the bench were Datuk Abu Bakar Jais and Datuk Ahmad Nasfy Yasin.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had on Dec 21 last year sentenced Tengku Adnan to 12-month jail and imposed a RM2 million fine on him after finding him guilty of the charge.
However, the court allowed the Putrajaya Member of Parliament’s application for a stay of execution of the jail sentence and fine pending his appeal.
Tengku Adnan was charged in his capacity as a public servant, namely Minister of Federal Territories, with having received for himself a total of RM2 million from businessman, Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong, who is Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd (AKSB) director, via a Hong Leong Islamic Bank cheque belonging to the company which was deposited into a CIMB account owned by Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd (THSB), which Tengku Adnan has an interest in and is known to AKSB as being related to his official duties.
He was accused of committing the offence at CIMB Bank Berhad of Pusat Bandar Damansara branch here on June 14, 2016, under Section 165 of the Penal Code which provides an imprisonment of up to two years or a fine or both.
Earlier, Tan submitted that the star witness for the prosecution, Chai had clearly testified in examination-in-chief that he would issue a cheque as a political donation to UMNO for Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections.
"In the witness statement, Chai (19th prosecution witness) testified that the RM2 million was his contribution to Tengku Adnan after the latter said he needed a political fund between RM5 million and RM6 million for two by-elections.
"Tan Sri Chai also confirmed that the sum of RM2 million was a political donation to UMNO and not for the appellant (Tengku Adnan)," he said adding that the charge was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant should have been acquitted and discharged.
Tan also submitted that there was a serious error by the learned trial judge Mohamad Zaini Mazlan when he imported his personal knowledge that the UMNO receipt was 'crisp and new' when there was no evidence to that effect.
Meanwhile, Asmah argued that Tengku Adnan obtained the RM2 million for himself and it was not a political contribution as there was an absence of orderly records based on the receipt acquired on fund contribution to UMNO.
She also argued the statement that the money was a political donation was only raised during cross-examination of sixth prosecution witness who is Tadmansori chief operating officer, Datuk Mohd Hasbi Jaafar and it was never mentioned to the investigation officer when the investigation was being conducted.
"The prosecution argued that Chai (SP 19) was only informed of the purpose of the fund by the accused but did not know whether it was really used as political fund. Therefore, it was not necessary to question the witness again on the issue of political contribution,” she said.