Najib berhubung transaksi yang dilakukan antara 2009 dan 2011. Wan Azwan Aiman: Kamu bersetuju bahawa bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, bekas Ketua Pegawai Operasi 1MDB Radhi Mohamad, bekas Pengarah Kewangan 1MDB Terrence Geh Choh Heng dan bekas Pengarah Eksekutif 1MDB Casey Tang Keng Chee adalah individu yang membenarkan wang itu dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star? Nur Aida: Berdasarkan dokumen, ya. Wan Azwan Aiman: Kamu bersetuju bahawa Najib tidak pernah mengarahkan mana-mana individu daripada pengurusan 1MDB untuk memindahkan US$1.03 bilion kepada Good Star? Nur Aida: Setuju. Sebelum ini, Nur Aida yang juga saksi pendakwaan ke-49 dalam pernyataannya mengesahkan bahawa US$1.03 bilion telah dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star dan syarikat itu tidak mempunyai sebarang hubungan perniagaan dengan 1MDB. Dana itu dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star melalui dua transaksi iaitu US$700 juta pada September 2009 manakala US$330 juta pada Mei 2011. Good Star menutup akaunnya di Coutts pada 4 Sept 2013 dan syarikat itu dibubarkan pada 2 Mei 2014. Terdahulu, Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah menetapkan tiga tarikh baharu perbicaraan iaitu pada 30 April, 2 dan 31 Mei. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah yang sama. Perbicaraan bersambung esok.

Najib berhubung transaksi yang dilakukan antara 2009 dan 2011. Wan Azwan Aiman: Kamu bersetuju bahawa bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, bekas Ketua Pegawai Operasi 1MDB Radhi Mohamad, bekas Pengarah Kewangan 1MDB Terrence Geh Choh Heng dan bekas Pengarah Eksekutif 1MDB Casey Tang Keng Chee adalah individu yang membenarkan wang itu dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star? Nur Aida: Berdasarkan dokumen, ya. Wan Azwan Aiman: Kamu bersetuju bahawa Najib tidak pernah mengarahkan mana-mana individu daripada pengurusan 1MDB untuk memindahkan AS$1.03 bilion kepada Good Star? Nur Aida: Setuju. Sebelum ini, Nur Aida yang juga saksi pendakwaan ke-49 dalam pernyataannya mengesahkan bahawa US$1.03 bilion telah dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star dan syarikat itu tidak mempunyai sebarang hubungan perniagaan dengan 1MDB. Dana itu dipindahkan ke akaun Good Star melalui dua transaksi iaitu US$700 juta pada September 2009 manakala AS$330 juta pada Mei 2011. Good Star menutup akaunnya di Coutts pada 4 Sept 2013 dan syarikat itu dibubarkan pada 2 Mei 2014. Terdahulu, Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah menetapkan tiga tarikh baharu perbicaraan iaitu pada 30 April, 2 dan 31 Mei. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah yang sama. Perbicaraan bersambung esok. - Bernama Ikuti Channel rasmi Sinar Harian di WhatsApp supaya anda tidak terlepas berita-berita terkini daripada kami. Jom! Klik di sini!

kepada Riza Shahriz serta dua syarikatnya, Red Granite Pictures Incorporated dan Red Granite Capital Limited. 1MDB memohon agar kes itu didengar bersama-sama satu lagi saman yang difailkan terhadap Najib dan tujuh lagi di hadapan Hakim Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad. Turut hadir pada prosiding hari ini ialah peguam Rabindra S.Nathan dan Lim Jun Rui yang mewakili 1MDB serta tiga anak syarikatnya iaitu 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, 1MDB Energy Limited dan 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited. Peguam Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee dan Genevieve Vanniasingham pula mewakili Riza Shahriz serta kedua-dua syarikatnya. Muhammad Farhan ketika dihubungi turut mengesahkan perkara itu dan berkata pendengaran saman tersebut akan diteruskan pada Oktober depan sebagaimana yang ditetapkan sebelum ini di hadapan Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin. Pada 7 Mei 2021, 1MDB dan tiga anak syarikatnya telah memfailkan saman terhadap Riza Shahriz dan dua syarikatnya atas dakwaan menerima dana kira-kira US$248 juta yang disalah guna untuk kepentingan peribadi termasuk membiayai penerbitan filem dan membeli pelbagai hartanah. Plaintif memohon deklarasi bahawa Riza Shahriz bertanggungjawab menyalahgunakan dana itu dan menuntut agar ia dibayar balik. Riza Shahriz dan dua syarikatnya dalam pernyataan pembelaan yang difailkan pada 25 Okt 2021 mendakwa telah mendapat pinjaman daripada keluarga diraja Arab Saudi atau International Petroleum Investment Company untuk menerbitkan beberapa filem di Amerika Syarikat. Riza Aziz mendakwa sukar bagi penerbit filem yang tidak dikenali untuk memperoleh pinjaman daripada bank, oleh itu beliau terpaksa mendapatkan dana daripada individu atau syarikat.

of RM5,000 to Riza Shahriz and his two companies, Red Granite Pictures Incorporated and Red Granite Capital Limited. 1MDB applied for its suit to be heard together with another suit that it filed against Najib and seven others, before Judge Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad. Also present in the proceedings were counsels Rabindra S.Nathan and Lim Jun Rui representing 1MDB and three of its subsidiaries, namely 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, 1MDB Energy Limited and 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited. Lawyer Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee and Genevieve Vanniasingham represented Riza Shahriz and his two companies. Meanwhile, Muhammad Farhan, when contacted, confirmed this matter and said the trial would proceed in October this year as fixed previously before the same JC (Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin). On May 7, 2021, 1MDB and its three subsidiaries sued Riza Shahriz and his two companies for allegedly receiving around US$248 million in funds that they misused for their personal gain, including financing a film and purchasing various properties. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that Riza Shahriz is responsible for the misappropriated funds and demand repayment. Riza Shahriz and his two companies, in a statement of defence filed on Oct 25, 2021, claimed to have obtained a loan from the Saudi royal family or the International Petroleum Investment Company to produce several films in the United States. He claimed that it was difficult for an unknown film producer to obtain bank loans and that had compelled him to seek funds from individuals or companies.

Riza Shahriz serta dua syarikatnya, Red Granite Pictures Incorporated dan Red Granite Capital Limited. 1MDB memohon agar kes itu didengar bersama-sama satu lagi saman yang difailkan terhadap Najib dan tujuh lagi di hadapan Hakim Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad. Turut hadir pada prosiding ialah peguam Rabindra S Nathan dan Lim Jun Rui yang mewakili 1MDB serta tiga anak syarikatnya iaitu 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, 1MDB Energy Limited dan 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited. Peguam Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee dan Genevieve Vanniasingham pula mewakili Riza Shahriz serta kedua-dua syarikatnya. Muhammad Farhan ketika dihubungi turut mengesahkan perkara itu dan berkata pendengaran saman tersebut akan diteruskan pada Oktober depan sebagaimana yang ditetapkan sebelum ini di hadapan Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin. Pada 7 Mei 2021, 1MDB dan tiga anak syarikatnya telah memfailkan saman terhadap Riza Shahriz dan dua syarikatnya atas dakwaan menerima dana kira-kira AS$248 juta yang disalah guna untuk kepentingan peribadi termasuk membiayai penerbitan filem dan membeli pelbagai hartanah. Plaintif memohon deklarasi bahawa Riza Shahriz bertanggungjawab menyalahgunakan dana itu dan menuntut agar ia dibayar balik. Riza Shahriz dan dua syarikatnya dalam pernyataan pembelaan yang difailkan pada 25 Oktober 2021 mendakwa telah mendapat pinjaman daripada keluarga diraja Arab Saudi atau International Petroleum Investment Company untuk menerbitkan beberapa filem di Amerika Syarikat. Riza Aziz mendakwa sukar bagi penerbit filem yang tidak dikenali untuk memperoleh pinjaman daripada bank, oleh itu beliau terpaksa mendapatkan dana daripada individu atau syarikat. - Bernama Ikuti Channel rasmi Sinar Harian di WhatsApp supaya anda tidak terlepas berita-berita terkini daripada kami. Jom! Klik di sini!

mengenai transaksi tersebut tidak penting untuk diajukan kepada bekas Perdana Menteri itu, bagaimanapun memaklumkan beliau ada bertanyakan perkara itu kepada Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi. Saksi itu berkata demikian ketika disoal oleh peguam Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin berhubung transaksi yang dilakukan pada September 2009. Wan Azwan: Adakah anda bertanya kepada Najib sama ada arahan untuk memindahkan 70 peratus daripada jumlah pelaburan US$1 bilion itu datangnya daripada beliau? Saya hanya bertanya kepada Shahrol Azral. Saya tidak bertanya kepada Najib. Saya rasa tak penting, katanya. Nur Aida, yang tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan peguam itu bahawa Shahrol Azral adalah 'alter ego' Jho Low, berkata Shahrol Azral percaya bahawa setiap arahan Jho Low adalah daripada Najib. Saksi pendakwaan ke-49 itu juga mengakui bahawa Najib tidak mengarahkan Shahrol Azral dan bekas Pengarah Eksekutif Pembangunan Perniagaan syarikat itu Casey Tang Keng Chee untuk menyembunyikannya (transaksi US$700 juta) daripada pengetahuan lembaga pengarah. Pada 2022, bekas Menteri Kewangan II Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah memberi keterangan bahawa Najib hanya mendiamkan diri, relaks dan tidak memberikan sebarang reaksi atau mengambil sebarang tindakan berhubung transaksi US$700 juta itu. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah yang sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung esok.

soalan mengenai transaksi tersebut tidak penting untuk diajukan kepada bekas Perdana Menteri itu, bagaimanapun memaklumkan beliau ada bertanyakan perkara itu kepada Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi. Saksi itu berkata demikian ketika disoal oleh peguam Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin berhubung transaksi yang dilakukan pada September 2009. Wan Azwan: Adakah anda bertanya kepada Najib sama ada arahan untuk memindahkan 70 peratus daripada jumlah pelaburan AS$1 bilion itu datangnya daripada beliau? "Saya hanya bertanya kepada Shahrol Azral. Saya tidak bertanya kepada Najib. Saya rasa tak penting," katanya. Nur Aida, yang tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan peguam itu bahawa Shahrol Azral adalah 'alter ego' Jho Low, berkata Shahrol Azral percaya bahawa setiap arahan Jho Low adalah daripada Najib. Saksi pendakwaan ke-49 itu juga mengakui bahawa Najib tidak mengarahkan Shahrol Azral dan bekas Pengarah Eksekutif Pembangunan Perniagaan syarikat itu Casey Tang Keng Chee untuk menyembunyikannya (transaksi AS$700 juta) daripada pengetahuan lembaga pengarah. Pada 2022, bekas Menteri Kewangan II, Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah memberi keterangan bahawa Najib hanya mendiamkan diri, relaks dan tidak memberikan sebarang reaksi atau mengambil sebarang tindakan berhubung transaksi AS$700 juta itu. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah yang sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung esok. - Bernama Ikuti Channel rasmi Sinar Harian di WhatsApp supaya anda tidak terlepas berita-berita terkini daripada kami. Jom! Klik di sini!

pertuduhan salah guna kuasa yang dihadapi bekas Perdana Menteri itu di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini. Wan Azwan Aiman kemudian menjelaskan bahawa soalan itu perlu dikemukakan kerana pembelaan cuba memastikan sama ada Nur Aida, yang juga pegawai penyiasat kes, sememangnya telah menyiasat empat unsur dalam pertuduhan tersebut. Bagaimanapun, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Ahmad Akram Gharib membantah soalan itu atas alasan bahagian itu dalam pertuduhan adalah selaras dengan Seksyen 23(2) Akta SPRM kerana terdapat anggapan bahawa Najib telah menyalahgunakan kuasanya. Peguam utama Najib iaitu Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah kemudian bangun dan berhujah bahawa pertuduhan terhadap anak guamnya adalah salah serta bertindih dan perkara itu akan dibangkitkan oleh pembelaan di akhir kes pendakwaan yang dijangka berakhir tidak lama lagi. Saya tidak mahu kami dituduh tidak membangkitkan perkara ini. Isu membabitkan semua pertuduhan akan menjadi sebahagian besar daripada hujahan kami. Pertuduhan adalah salah serta bertindih, katanya. Pada peringkat ini, Sequerah mengarahkan kedua-dua pihak agar memasukkan perkara itu dalam hujahan mereka dan mengingatkan bahawa ia terpulang kepada mahkamah untuk memutuskan sama ada pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen dalam pertuduhan, bukannya pegawai penyiasat SPRM berkenaan. Sementara itu, kepada soalan lain yang dikemukakan oleh Wan Azwan Aiman, Nur Aida yang juga saksi pendakwaan ke-49 mengesahkan bahawa beliau tidak menyiasat bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi ketika menjalankan siasatan dalam kes 1MDB. Perkara itu tidak dilakukan meskipun laporan Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) pada 7 April 2016 antara lain mengesyorkan agar pihak berkuasa menyiasat Shahrol Azral dan mereka yang berkaitan dengan 1MDB. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan sebanyak RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan bersambung esok.

position charges faced by the former prime minister at the High Court here. Wan Azwan Aiman explained that his line of questioning was relevant for the defence to establish whether Nur Aida, who is the case investigating officer, had indeed investigated the four elements in the charge. However, deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib objected to the defences line of questioning, asserting that this aspect of the charge aligns with Section 23(2) of the MACC Act, which presumes that Najib had abused his power. Najibs lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, contended that the charges against his client were inaccurate and overlapping. He emphasised that this issue would form a significant part of the defences arguments once the prosecution concludes its case, especially considering the trial is nearing its end. I dont want us to be accused of not raising this. The subject matter on all the charges will be a huge part of our submissions. The charges are all wrong, duplicitous and multiplicitous, said Muhammad Shafee. At this juncture, Justice Sequerah instructed both parties to include the matter in their submissions later and reminded them that it was up to the court, and not the MACC investigating officer, to determine whether the prosecution had proven elements of the charges. The determination of whether or not this has been proven, as it has been said time and again, is my call. I am supposed to decide whether these elements have been proven or not, he said. The judge also noted that the question posed by the defence was something technical that the investigating officer could not answer. Meanwhile, to another question by Wan Azwan Aiman during cross-examination, Nur Aida who is the 49th prosecution witness confirmed she did not investigate 1MDBs former chief executive officer Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi. One of the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee report on April 7, 2016, was for authorities to probe Shahrol Azral and those related to the companys financial state. Najib, 70, is facing four charges of abusing his position to obtain bribes amounting to RM2.3 billion of 1MDB funds and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount. The trial resumes tomorrow.

pertuduhan salah guna kuasa yang dihadapi bekas Perdana Menteri itu di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini. Wan Azwan Aiman kemudian menjelaskan bahawa soalan itu perlu dikemukakan kerana pembelaan cuba memastikan sama ada Nur Aida, yang juga pegawai penyiasat kes, sememangnya telah menyiasat empat unsur dalam pertuduhan tersebut. Bagaimanapun, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Ahmad Akram Gharib membantah soalan itu atas alasan bahagian itu dalam pertuduhan adalah selaras dengan Seksyen 23(2) Akta SPRM kerana terdapat anggapan bahawa Najib telah menyalahgunakan kuasanya. Peguam utama Najib iaitu Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah kemudian bangun dan berhujah bahawa pertuduhan terhadap anak guamnya adalah salah serta bertindih dan perkara itu akan dibangkitkan oleh pembelaan di akhir kes pendakwaan yang dijangka berakhir tidak lama lagi. "Saya tidak mahu kami dituduh tidak membangkitkan perkara ini. "Isu membabitkan semua pertuduhan akan menjadi sebahagian besar daripada hujahan kami. "Pertuduhan adalah salah serta bertindih," katanya. Pada peringkat ini, Sequerah mengarahkan kedua-dua pihak agar memasukkan perkara itu dalam hujahan mereka dan mengingatkan bahawa ia terpulang kepada mahkamah untuk memutuskan sama ada pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen dalam pertuduhan, bukannya pegawai penyiasat SPRM berkenaan. Sementara itu, kepada soalan lain yang dikemukakan oleh Wan Azwan Aiman, Nur Aida yang juga saksi pendakwaan ke-49 mengesahkan bahawa beliau tidak menyiasat bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB, Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi ketika menjalankan siasatan dalam kes 1MDB. Perkara itu tidak dilakukan meskipun laporan Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) pada 7 April 2016 antara lain mengesyorkan agar pihak berkuasa menyiasat Shahrol Azral dan mereka yang berkaitan dengan 1MDB. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan sebanyak RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan bersambung esok. - Bernama Ikuti Channel rasmi Sinar Harian di WhatsApp supaya anda tidak terlepas berita-berita terkini daripada kami. Jom! Klik di sini!

Noorin Badaruddin hari ini. Pihak responden (Isham atau nama sebenarnya Hizatul Isham Abdul Jalil) telah mengemukakan representasi berkenaan kepada AG pada 25 Mac lepas melalui e-mel dan pemohon (pendakwa raya) perlu mendapatkan arahan daripada AG berhubung representasi itu. Representasi itu adalah untuk membuat permohonan maaf secara terbuka dan tidak bersyarat kepada badan kehakiman. Oleh itu, pihak kami memohon suatu tarikh pengurusan kes baharu ditetapkan, kata Ahmad Akram yang mengendalikan kes bersama TPR Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam. Peguam Jamie Wong Siew Min mewakili Isham sebagai responden, mengesahkan perkara tersebut. Hakim Noorin kemudian menetapkan 10 Jun ini untuk pengurusan kes bagi status representasi. Pada 4 Mac lepas, mahkamah membenarkan permohonan AG untuk memulakan prosiding komital terhadap Isham. Peguam Negara dalam permohonan yang difailkan pada 28 Dis tahun lepas, turut memohon agar mahkamah memenjara atau mengenakan hukuman denda terhadap Isham. Permohonan itu difailkan atas alasan Isham telah mengucapkan kata-kata berbentuk penghinaan kepada mahkamah dalam satu temu bual bertajuk Townhall For Justice: Keadilan Sebenarnya Untuk Siapa? yang disiarkan di laman Facebook The Malaya Post pada 30 Sept tahun lepas. Peguam Negara mendakwa dalam temu bual itu, Isham telah mempersoal proses perbicaraan dan rayuan membabitkan bekas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dalam kes berkaitan syarikat SRC International serta 1MDB. Isham turut didakwa mempertikai proses pendengaran permohonan penarikan diri Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah yang mendengar perbicaraan kes 1MDB di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini serta proses rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes SRC International. Peguam Negara juga mendakwa perkataan yang diucapkan oleh Isham telah mengaibkan Badan Kehakiman dan boleh menggugat keyakinan orang awam terhadap institusi itu.

Datuk Noorin Badaruddin hari ini. "Pihak responden (Isham atau nama sebenarnya Hizatul Isham Abdul Jalil) telah mengemukakan representasi berkenaan kepada AG pada 25 Mac lepas melalui e-mel dan pemohon (pendakwa raya) perlu mendapatkan arahan daripada AG berhubung representasi itu. "Representasi itu adalah untuk membuat permohonan maaf secara terbuka dan tidak bersyarat kepada badan kehakiman. Oleh itu, pihak kami memohon suatu tarikh pengurusan kes baharu ditetapkan,??? kata Ahmad Akram yang mengendalikan kes bersama TPR Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam. Peguam Jamie Wong Siew Min mewakili Isham sebagai responden, mengesahkan perkara tersebut. Hakim Noorin kemudian menetapkan 10 Jun ini untuk pengurusan kes bagi status representasi. Pada 4 Mac lepas, mahkamah membenarkan permohonan AG untuk memulakan prosiding komital terhadap Isham. Peguam Negara dalam permohonan yang difailkan pada 28 Disember tahun lepas, turut memohon agar mahkamah memenjara atau mengenakan hukuman denda terhadap Isham. Permohonan itu difailkan atas alasan Isham telah mengucapkan kata-kata berbentuk penghinaan kepada mahkamah dalam satu temu bual bertajuk Townhall For Justice: Keadilan Sebenarnya Untuk Siapa? yang disiarkan di laman Facebook The Malaya Post pada 30 September tahun lepas. Peguam Negara mendakwa dalam temu bual itu, Isham telah mempersoal proses perbicaraan dan rayuan membabitkan bekas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dalam kes berkaitan syarikat SRC International serta 1MDB. Isham turut didakwa mempertikai proses pendengaran permohonan penarikan diri Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah yang mendengar perbicaraan kes 1MDB di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini serta proses rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes SRC International. Peguam Negara juga mendakwa perkataan yang diucapkan oleh Isham telah mengaibkan Badan Kehakiman dan boleh menggugat keyakinan orang awam terhadap institusi itu. - Bernama

empat surat yang dikaitkan dengan derma RM2.6 bilion. Tiada dokumen menunjukkan transaksi berkaitan dana yang dimasukkan dalam akaun bank Najib adalah datang daripada dua putera Arab Saudi itu, katanya. Beliau berkata demikian ketika disoal balas peguam Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah yang mewakili Najib pada perbicaraan kes rasuah dan pengubahan wang haram dana RM2.3 bilion milik 1MDB yang dihadapi bekas perdana menteri itu. Saksi pendakwaan ke-49 itu menjelaskan bahawa kedua-dua putera itu tidak memberi keterangan berhubung dana yang didakwa masuk ke dalam akaun bekas perdana menteri atas alasan protokol diraja. Mereka hanya menunjukkan pasport untuk tujuan pengecaman dan tiada salinan dibekalkan, katanya. Nur Aida berkata pegawai SPRM yang telah pergi ke Riyadh pada ketika itu adalah Asisten Komisioner SPRM Mohd Nasharudin Amir, Pengarah Bahagian Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pelucuthakan Harta (AMLFOP) SPRM, Fikri Ab Rahim, Timbalan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM, Datuk Seri Azam Baki dan Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad yang ketika itu sebagai wakil Pejabat Peguam Negara. Nur Aida juga tidak menolak cadangan Muhammad Shafee bahawa kesemua mereka (pegawai SPRM) itu boleh dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam kes ini kerana mereka adalah pegawai yang berjumpa dengan dua putera Arab itu dan relevan untuk perbicaraan ini. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan iaitu menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung esok.

individuals to ensure the authenticity of the four letters linked to the donations allegedly given by the Saudi royal family to the former prime minister. There is no document showing that the transaction related to the funds deposited into Najibs accounts came from the two Saudi princes, she said during the cross-examination by Najibs lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah at the former prime ministers corruption and money laundering trial involving RM2.3 billion of 1MDB funds today. The prosecutions 49th witness explained that the two princes also did not testify regarding the alleged funds that went into Najibs account due to royal protocol. They only show passports for identification purposes and no photocopies were provided, she said. According to Nur Aida, the MACC officials who went to Riyadh at that point of time were Assistant Commissioner Mohd Nasharudin Amir, director of MACC Anti-Money Laundering and Forfeiture of Properties Division Fikri Ab Rahim and Deputy Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Azam Baki, along with Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad who was representing the Attorney-Generals Chambers. Nur Aida also agreed to Muhammad Shafees suggestion that all of them (MACC officers) could be called as witnesses in this case because they were the officers who met the two Saudi princes and were relevant to this trial. Najib, 70, faces four charges of using his position to obtain bribes amounting to RM2.3 billion of 1MDB funds and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount. The trial before Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah continues tomorrow.

ketulenan empat surat yang dikaitkan dengan derma RM2.6 bilion. "Tiada dokumen menunjukkan transaksi berkaitan dana yang dimasukkan dalam akaun bank Najib adalah datang daripada dua putera Arab Saudi itu,??? katanya. Beliau berkata demikian ketika disoal balas peguam Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah yang mewakili Najib pada perbicaraan kes rasuah dan pengubahan wang haram dana RM2.3 bilion milik 1MDB yang dihadapi bekas perdana menteri itu. Saksi pendakwaan ke-49 itu menjelaskan bahawa kedua-dua putera itu tidak memberi keterangan berhubung dana yang didakwa masuk ke dalam akaun bekas perdana menteri atas alasan protokol diraja. "Mereka hanya menunjukkan pasport untuk tujuan pengecaman dan tiada salinan dibekalkan,??? katanya. Nur Aida berkata, pegawai SPRM yang telah pergi ke Riyadh pada ketika itu adalah Asisten Komisioner SPRM, Mohd Nasharudin Amir;Pengarah Bahagian Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pelucuthakan Harta (AMLFOP) SPRM, Fikri Ab Rahim; Timbalan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM, Datuk Seri Azam Baki dan Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad yang ketika itu sebagai wakil Pejabat Peguam Negara. Nur Aida juga tidak menolak cadangan Muhammad Shafee bahawa kesemua mereka (pegawai SPRM) itu boleh dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam kes ini kerana mereka adalah pegawai yang berjumpa dengan dua putera Arab itu dan relevan untuk perbicaraan ini. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan iaitu menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung esok. - Bernama Nak berita-berita terkini dengan lebih pantas? Jom sertai saluran WhatsApp Sinar Harian: ...

Anifah Aman dan bekas duta Malaysia ke Arab Saudi, Profesor Datuk Syed Omar Alsagoff. Saksi ke-49 pendakwaan, Penguasa Kanan SPRM, Nur Aida Arifin, 37, yang juga pegawai penyiasat kes Najib melibatkan penyelewangan dana 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), berkata beliau tidak merekodkan kenyataan daripada menteri yang menghadiri pertemuan tersebut kerana isu berkenaan tidak pernah timbul. Menurutnya, Najib tidak mendedahkan perkara itu apabila dipanggil SRM untuk direkodkan kenyataan pada 2018. Tidak ada isu (berhubung tidak merekodkan kenyataan menteri Kabinet) kerana pernyataan Najib kepada SPRM juga tidak menyebut mengenainya. Isu ini hanya timbul ketika perbicaraan SRC, katanya ketika disoal balas peguam Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah yang mewakili Najib. Saksi itu berkata butiran terperinci mengenai pertemuan bersama Almarhum Raja Abdullah sepatutnya dimaklumkan sendiri oleh Najib kepada pegawai penyiasat ketika beliau dipanggil memberi keterangan kepada SPRM untuk membela dirinya. Najib, melalui pembelaannya sebelum ini dalam kes penyelewengan dana milik SRC International Sdn Bhdmendakwa beliau percaya wang yang diterima dalam akaunnya adalah derma daripada Arab Saudi berikutan pertemuannya dengan Raja Abdullah di Riyadh bersama beberapa orang menteri. Sewaktu perbicaraan kes Najib berhubung SRC pada Februari 2020, Jamil Khir memberikan keterangan bahawa kerajaan Malaysia melalui Najib memohon sumbangan derma daripada Arab Saudi dan bukan ditawarkan oleh negara berkenaan. Menurut Jamil Khir, beliau tahu mengenai permohonan itu tetapi perkara berkenaan tidak dibincangkan di peringkat Kabinet kerana tidak termasuk dalam urusan pentadbiran. Bekas menteri itu berkata sumbangan daripada Arab Saudi berkenaan tidak dibincangkan secara umum kerana ia diberikan kepada Najib secara peribadi. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan iaitu menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung.

Profesor Datuk Syed Omar Alsagoff and Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom. Nur Aida Ariffin, 37, the investigating officer in Najibs case involving the misappropriation of funds from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), told the court that she did not record the statements from Cabinet ministers who attended the meeting because the issue never arose. No issue (regarding the failure to record statements from the Cabinet ministers) because Najibs statement to the MACC also did not mention them. This issue only arose during the SRC trial, she said when cross-examined by lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing Najib. According to the 49th prosecution witness, Najib should have informed the investigating officer of his meeting with the late King Abdullah when he was summoned to provide statements to MACC to defend himself. Through his defence in the case of misappropriation of funds belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd, Najib said he believed the money he received in his accounts was a donation following his meeting with King Abdullah in Riyadh along with several ministers. During Najibs SRC trial in February 2020, Jamal Khir testified that the Malaysian government, through Najib, applied for a donation from Saudi Arabia, adding that the money was not an offer made by the Kingdom. According to Jamal Khir, he knew about the donation application but stressed that the matter was never discussed in Cabinet meetings as it was not an administrative matter. The former minister said the donation was kept from public knowledge because it was personally given to Najib. Najib, 70, faces four charges of using his position (as prime minister) to obtain bribes totalling RM2.3 billion from 1MDB funds and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount. The hearing before Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah continues.

Anifah Aman dan bekas duta Malaysia ke Arab Saudi, Profesor Datuk Syed Omar Alsagoff. Saksi ke-49 pendakwaan, Penguasa Kanan SPRM, Nur Aida Arifin, 37, yang juga pegawai penyiasat kes Najib melibatkan penyelewangan dana 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), berkata, beliau tidak merekodkan kenyataan daripada menteri yang menghadiri pertemuan tersebut kerana isu berkenaan tidak pernah timbul. Menurutnya, Najib tidak mendedahkan perkara itu apabila dipanggil SRM untuk direkodkan kenyataan pada 2018. "Tidak ada isu (berhubung tidak merekodkan kenyataan menteri Kabinet) kerana pernyataan Najib kepada SPRM juga tidak menyebut mengenainya. Isu ini hanya timbul ketika perbicaraan SRC,??? katanya ketika disoal balas peguam Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah yang mewakili Najib. Saksi itu berkata butiran terperinci mengenai pertemuan bersama Almarhum Raja Abdullah sepatutnya dimaklumkan sendiri oleh Najib kepada pegawai penyiasat ketika beliau dipanggil memberi keterangan kepada SPRM untuk membela dirinya. Najib, melalui pembelaannya sebelum ini dalam kes penyelewengan dana milik SRC International Sdn Bhdmendakwa beliau percaya wang yang diterima dalam akaunnya adalah derma daripada Arab Saudi berikutan pertemuannya dengan Raja Abdullah di Riyadh bersama beberapa orang menteri. Sewaktu perbicaraan kes Najib berhubung SRC pada Februari 2020, Jamil Khir memberikan keterangan bahawa kerajaan Malaysia melalui Najib memohon sumbangan derma daripada Arab Saudi dan bukan ditawarkan oleh negara berkenaan. Menurut Jamil Khir, beliau tahu mengenai permohonan itu tetapi perkara berkenaan tidak dibincangkan di peringkat Kabinet kerana tidak termasuk dalam urusan pentadbiran. Bekas menteri itu berkata, sumbangan daripada Arab Saudi berkenaan tidak dibincangkan secara umum kerana ia diberikan kepada Najib secara peribadi. Najib, 70, berdepan empat pertuduhan iaitu menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk memperoleh suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion dana 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan jumlah sama. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah bersambung. - Bernama Nak berita-berita terkini dengan lebih pantas? Jom sertai saluran WhatsApp Sinar Harian: ...

officer ?? New Straits Times

CONVICTIONS by Court, and to date does not include HOUSE ARREST in Malaysia.... Can pardon powers include special privileges for some prisoners, who are 'friends' of the King or government of the day? Many in Malaysia believed for a long time that past Prime Ministers and Cabinet members, and ruling party members were abusing the powers and 'stealing' government funds of the people, and they believed that law enforcers and those in the administration of justice were wrongly 'closing their eyes' - for these 'powerful people' were ABOVE the law, and 'protected'. But, alas it was a belief only, with no real proof... After GE14, when Pakatan Harapan finally ousted the BN regime, who were in power since Independence, finally things started moving and 'suspected' criminals were being investigated, prosecuted, tried and convicted. Najib Razak's trial and conviction was very important as he was the former Prime Minister and former head of BN - and these meant all the other lesser politicians will also finally face justice. This made Malaysians hopeful for finally criminals will not escape but will have to pay for their crimes according to the law. Of course, in Najib's case, investigation and prosecution became inevitable as the 1MDB Scandal was not just a Malaysian scandal, but was a global scandal and many in many other countries were also being investigated, charged and tried for various related crimes. Unlike murder or simple theft, crimes committed by these politicians and their friends are complicated and sometimes crosses national boundaries... but SYABAS or CONGRATULATIONS to the Malaysian law enforcement for effectively investigating and prosecuting these cases... But then came Anwar Ibrahim as the Prime Minister after GE15 with his PH-led coalition - and things started changing. Somehow, what was achieved by PH before is now being overturned... Before GE15, PH main 'enemy' was Barisan Nasional(BN). After GE15, PH did not win the required number of parliamentary seats to form government on its own. The King suggested that PH forms a coalition government with PN (Perikatan Nasional) but then PN took a strong stand that it would not form a coalition government with PH. BN(30), PH(81), PN(74),GTA(0),GRS(6),GPS(23),OTH(8) The Sabah and Sarawak parties would normally join the government party that have sufficient seats. So, Pakatan Harapan had a CHOICE to make (a) Form government by entering into a coalition with BN; OR (b) Stay in Opposition and allow PN to try to form a government.. PH chose (a) and entered into a coalition government with its political enemy for decades, the BN. This was a MAJOR COMPROMISE, which many supporters of PH were not happy with. Should PH have stuck with its principles, values and reform agenda - and stayed in Opposition if it could not form government with other parties, as long as it was not BN? After DECADES, Malaysians decided to reject BN despite the risk of repercussions - Note BN had 79 MPs after GE14, and this became only 30 after GE15. The trend was the complete rejection of BN was coming soon. But, when PH joined BN to form government - BN got a lifeline that could revive BN, or alternatively bring down PH. It looks like come GE16, we may have a PH-BN Coalition - so, will this be seen as BN Baru? Even after the Sheraton Move, following the leaving of one PH Party(BERSATU) and many MPs from other PH Parties, where the highest number was from Anwar's PKR. The new coalition government then under PM Muhyiddin and then PM Ismail Sabri took the stand of not including MPs under investigation or facing trials('court cluster') in the Cabinet - they were just government Backbencher MPs. However, when Anwar became Prime Minister - The Deputy Prime Minister was UMNO/BN Chairperson Zahid Hamidi who was facing several trials, and the Deputy Finance Minister was also from UMNO Ahmad Maslan.. Then, we had Najib's Pardon that halved his sentence - Note that the King acts on the advice of the Pardons Board - made up of the Attorney General, a Minister and 3 others. After Anwar's pardon soon after PH won in GE14 created the perception that the government has great influence or 'control' of who the King/Rulers pardon, so many saw Najib's pardon was because of PH and BN coalition government... Then there were other things the Anwar's government did # It 'helped' Zahid Hamidi stay on as President. Apparently, in the midst of an UMNO General Meeting a motion was tabled that there be no contest for the top 2 position - that means no other deserving candidate can be nominated or contest to become President or No. 2. A complaint was lodged with the Registrar of Society, who reasonably would have decided that this 'Motion/Resolution' was illegal being contrary to UMNO's constitution or the law - Then the HOME MINISTER stepped in and granted an EXEMPTION which allowed UMNO to go against its rules/constitution and/or the law(Societies Act). Home Minister's exemption to UMNO questionable? Was there ''illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness'? No Minister has absolute discretion to do as he pleases... Will PM Anwar REPEAL draconian Societies Act? The Act to prevent registrations of Political Parties, to make unlawful societies,...???? ## One of the biggest hurdle for the prosecution is to prove PRIMA FACIE case, all the elements of the charge whereby if the accussed fails to raise REASONABLE DOUBT during the Defence case will result in conviction and sentencing. So, the decision of the AG/Public Prosecutor to discontinue the criminal case of Zahid Hamidi at the defence stage was rather ODD. If DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran continues to prosecute, Zahid Hamidi will likely be convicted and sentenced? Come back and prosecute to the end.. When AG who discontinued Zahid's case gets appointed Chairman of a GLC - A question of public perception? Judges/Courts confused by 'badly drafted' law - Parliament must CLARIFY whether when Prosecutor discontinues a case, the accussed is to be acquitted or DNAAed as of right? Zahid Hamidi's DNAA?? NGO gesa prosiding penjelasan isu DNAA Zahid disiar langsung(Malaysian Insight) Live Broadcast/Hansard for all Parliamentary Select Committee (Zahid's DNAA) - A media statement What happened to Zahid's DNAA Parliamentary Committee? Separation of AG from Public Prosecutor important but the DNAA? Zahid Hamidi's can always be charged again, the trial reinstated and continued - section 254A CPC? Explaining and concerns? Another UMNO politician cases:- Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abd Samad were freed from all corruption charges involving RM2.8 million.High Court Judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid acquitted and discharged the couple from the case today.He made the decision after ruling that the Sessions Court erred in ordering Bung Moktar and Zizie Izette to enter their defence on Sept 2, last year. On May 3, 2019, Bung Moktar was charged with two charges of accepting bribes of RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts. - NST, 7/9/2023 Was there any former BN politician charged for abuse of power, corruption, money laundering, etc - crimes committed when they were Ministers or MPs of the government party during the BN rule? Even prosecution appeals against the acquittals of then BN leaders are getting delayed and delayed... Zahid Hamidi - Court of Appeal not respected? No more adjournments - Let COA hear the appeal. CLEAN and idependent administration of justice is fundamental. With the reason alleged Pardon of Najib that saw the sentence being cut in half, people were unhappy. We have yet to see the Pardon Decision of the King, all we have seen is a statement by the Pardons Board - True, the King has to do as advised by the Pardons Board - but still the final Pardon Decision should be issued by the King or the Palace, as was done when Anwar Ibrahim was pardoned. Najib's PARDON now may have serious impact to Malaysia, Malaysian law enforcement, prosecution and courts? Najib's Pardon - King, not Pardon Board have the power - As the King did not tell us when he was King, is there any consequences? PARDON - Discrimination, only for some? Should Shafee's disclosure that could invalidate Najib's pardon be acted on? A law on PARDONS? N ow, there is allegation that the King's Pardon also said that Najib was to serve his remaining prison sentence at home ...under 'house arrest'. If TRUE, this is a VERY SERIOUS issue - WHY DID PM ANWAR IBRAHIM OR THE GOVERNMENT NOT TELL US THEN ABOUT THIS 'HOUSE ARREST' THINGY THAT THE KING ALLEGEDLY ORDERED? This was NOT in the Pardon Boards public statement. Even if the King makes a WRONG orders about Najib's Pardon, NOT as advised by the Pardons Board or against the Constitution/Law, then rightly the Pardons Board(which includes the Attorney General) and maybe the Prime Minister ought to have informed him of the mistake - so that the King can revise it and come out with a Pardons Order that is correct and in accordance to law. The Pardons Board or the PM(or the Cabinet) cannot just reveal a part of the Order and not the full order. This is wrong and may also be DISRESPECT to the King? Interestingly, now the Deputy Prime Minister also admits that he knew about the 'additional order' - so why did he not reveal it then as the Pardon happened at the end of February 2024? Did the Deputy hide it from Prime Minister Anwar? Or did Anwar Ibrahim also know but elected not to DISCLOSE it, or act upon it? The King's Pardon Order must be disclosed to the public - Transparency Please. In the document, the Umno president[DPM Zahid Hamidi] said he was shown the document by former Selangor Umno treasurer Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz at his (Ahmad Zahid's) house at Country Heights on Jan 30 ...I further sighted that the addendum order is dated Jan 29 and has the seal and signature of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda the Yang di-Pertuan Agong XVI. Was it Prime Minister's plan to delay the disclosure of the 'addendum order' - because the Malaysian public was already angry that Najib's sentence was cut in half? Will Anwar also be filing an Affidavit - after all he is the Prime Minister? Anyway, we will see what happens in court? Anwar Ibrahim commented on Zahid Hamidi's Affidavit - Commenting on his deputys affidavit filed in Najibs application for judicial review of his partial pardon, Anwar said it was Zahids prerogative to do so. He (submitted the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board, Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.ed the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board, Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal. We remain steadfast that all decisions involving the Malay Rulers cannot be challenged. I do not wish to comment further as this has been our (the governments) principle since independence. Comments :- Foolish, because Zahid Hamidi was the Deputy Prime Minister when the Pardon was given until now. Did the Deputy Prime Minister inform the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at the material time about the alleged 'adendum order' about house arrest? Or did he keep the PM and the Cabinet, and the Parliament in the dark? Anwar, being Prime Minister cannot not affirm an Affidavit in Najib's application for Judicial Review - as there are material questions that he must tell us - was he aware of any such 'addendum order', part of the King's Pardon, and when did he become aware of it and why did he not act on it? Who is in the Pardon's Board - the Attorney General(appointed by King on the advice of PM Anwar Ibrahim), the Minister in charge of Federal Territories( (appointed by King on the advice of PM Anwar Ibrahim, and also member of the Cabinet), and the 3 other members of the Pardon Board(again reasonably appointed by King on the advice of the Prime Minister) Implementation of the Pardon Order - well, again it is the Executive Branch led by the Prime Minister. House Arrest(even if possible) - there is FINANCIAL IMPLICATION as prison officers will need to secure the premises, so that the prisoner does not escape his place of detention. Then, the bigger problem is that there is still law stipulating how 'house arrest' works. So, Anwar cannot say he is not involved... Also note that the Pardons Board statement was issued under the PRIME MINISTER's Department letterhead. Anyway, all in all, the Malaysian people and the international community are watching - what happens in court will affect public perception of Anwar and PH... Royal addendum for Najib's house arrest is real, says Zahid By NURBAITI HAMDAN Nation Wednesday, 17 Apr 2024 3:28 PM MYT KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal addendum from the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Riayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, which would allow Datuk Seri Najib Razak to go under house arrest, does exist, claims Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. The Deputy Prime Minister said this in his affidavit in support of Najib's application for leave to commence judicial review in relation to the royal addendum he claimed was granted to him along with his royal pardon. In the document, the Umno president said he was shown the document by former Selangor Umno treasurer Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz at his (Ahmad Zahid's) house at Country Heights on Jan 30. Ahmad Zahid said Tengku Zafrul showed him a copy of the addendum order on his (Tengku Zafrul's) phone which he personally photographed or scanned from an original copy as shown to him by the former YDPA. The contents of the addendum order expressly stated that the applicant (Najib) be allowed to serve the reduced sentence of his imprisonment under condition of house arrest, instead of the current prison confinement in the Kajang Prison. I further sighted that the addendum order is dated Jan 29 and has the seal and signature of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda the Yang di-Pertuan Agong XVI. I further confirm that the addendum order is genuine and in fact is the Royal Prerogative Order as the Main Order. I verily believe that for the sufficient period of time I sighted and read the addendum order, and I clearly saw the entire contents and that it forms part of the pardon process. Thus, I hereby confirm the existence of the addendum order dated Jan 29 issued by the former King, Ahmad Zahid stated in the affidavit dated April 9. The affidavit is accessible to the public on the judiciary website. Previously, the court was told that a "crucial witness" would be supporting Najib's application in his bid to go under house arrest. Ahmad Zahid, however, stated that he did not have a copy of the impugned document due to confidentiality and propriety, especially in the light of the fact that the addendum order had by then not been executed or enforced. He said he believed that other government members have seen the addendum order apart from him and Tengku Zafrul. Specifically, I am aware that Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail (Pahang menteri besar) has also seen a copy of the addendum order and can confirm the same. I am further verily informed that the Attorney General (AG) has the original copy of the addendum order for his legal input on the same, Ahmad Zahid said. Earlier, the High Court barred the press from covering the hearing of Najib's leave application at the request of Najib's lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah. Muhammad Shafee said the matter should be moved in-chambers due to its sensitive nature. Senior Federal Counsels Shamsul Bolhassan and Ahmad Hanir Hambaly did not object. Justice Amarjeet Singh allowed the application. The judge fixed June 5 to deliver his decision. - Star, 17/4/2024 Zahid didnt use official position to support Najib, says Anwar Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim with the public at Gerai Kak Ngah Billion in Bandar Teknologi Kajang for lunch before performing Friday prayers, April 19, 2024. The prime minister said today that Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi issued an affidavit in support of ex-prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the formers capacity as Umno president. Bernama pic By Justin Ong Friday, 19 Apr 2024 4:38 PM MYT KUALA LUMPUR, April 19 Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi issued an affidavit in support of ex-prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the formers capacity as Umno president, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today. Commenting on his deputys affidavit filed in Najibs application for judicial review of his partial pardon, Anwar said it was Zahids prerogative to do so. He (submitted the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board, Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.ed the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board, Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal. We remain steadfast that all decisions involving the Malay Rulers cannot be challenged. I do not wish to comment further as this has been our (the governments) principle since independence. On Wednesday, Zahid was identified as the critical witness supporting Najibs bid to compel the federal government and the Pardons Board to produce a purported supplementary order from the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Zahids affidavit also claimed that Minister of Investment, Trade, and Industry Senator Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Aziz had affirmed the existence of the supplementary order. Tengku Zafrul subsequently said he would apply to correct certain factual errors, but did not specify the errors. In his application for leave to seek judicial review filed on April 1, Najib claimed the former Agong issued the order during the January 29 meeting of the board, for the former to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence under house arrest. On February 2, the Pardons Board halved Najibs sentence from a 12-year prison term to six years for misappropriating funds amounting to RM42 million, which means he may be released earlier on August 23, 2028. - Malay Mail, 19/4/2024

yang merupakan perdana menteri dan juga menteri kewangan ketika itu. Shahrol Azral berkata demikian ketika memberi keterangan selaku pihak ketiga dalam saman sivil AS$1.18 bilion SRC International terhadap Najib dan bekas ketua pegawai eksekutifnya Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil. "Saya merasakan saya perlu melakukannya kerana ia adalah arahan PM. Saya lebih suka jika mempunyai lebih maklumat, tetapi saya teruskan juga dan menandatanganinya. Ia bukan sekadar arahan, ia telah ditandatangani oleh PM dan bekas menteri kewangan dan pemegang saham 1MDB yang menjadikannya sangat kukuh. "Kami cuba mendapatkan seberapa banyak maklumat yang boleh, tetapi apabila tiba untuk pelaksanaan, PM telah menandatanganinya... jadi kami terpaksa melakukannya. Jika PM fikir ia adalah idea yang baik, saya percaya pertimbangannya,??? kata saksi itu ketika disoal peguam Najib Harvinderjit Singh. Wang pinjaman itu telah dipindahkan kepada Falcon Private Bank Ltd di Switzerland dan Julius Baer di Hong Kong untuk kegunaan bagi memperoleh dua syarikat di Indonesia (PT ABM Investama dan Bumi Resources TBk PT) serta dua syarikat di Mongolia (Gobi Coal and Energy Limited dan Erdens-Tavan Tolgoi). Dalam perbicaraan jenayah SRC pada 2019, bekas pengerusi SRC Tan Sri Ismee Ismail memberi keterangan bahawa Nik Faisal telah diarahkan oleh Najib untuk memindahkan wang itu dalam mesyuarat pada 7 September 2011. SRC di bawah pengurusan baharunya memfailkan saman itu pada Mei 2021 dengan mendakwa bahawa Najib telah melakukan pecah amanah dan penyalahgunaan kuasa, secara peribadi mendapat manfaat daripada dana syarikat dan menyalahgunakan dana tersebut. Ia juga memohon pengisytiharan mahkamah bahawa Najib bertanggungjawab ke atas kerugian syarikat akibat pelanggaran tugas dan amanahnya, dan supaya Najib membayar balik kerugian RM42 juta yang mereka alami. Najib, 70, menjalani hukuman penjara di Penjara Kajang sejak 23 Ogos 2022, selepas disabitkan kesalahan menyeleweng RM42 juta dana SRC International. Beliau kemudiannya memfailkan petisyen untuk pengampunan diraja pada 2 September 2022 dan Lembaga Pengampunan pada Januari tahun ini telah mengurangkan hukuman penjara Najib daripada 12 kepada enam tahun serta denda dikurangkan kepada RM50 juta daripada RM210 juta. Perbicaraan di hadapan Hakim Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin bersambung pada 6 Mei pukul 9.30 pagi. - Bernama Nak berita-berita terkini dengan lebih pantas? Jom sertai saluran WhatsApp Sinar Harian: ...

kepada Arul Kanda dan Mohd Irwan. Bercakap kepada pemberita selepas itu, peguam Lavinia Kumaraendran yang mewakili Mohd Irwan berkata memandangkan permohonan tersebut telah ditolak maka perbicaraan kes berkenaan akan diteruskan pada September seperti ditetapkan sebelum ini. Tahun lepas, 1MDB telah memfailkan permohonan untuk kedua-dua saman didengar di hadapan hakim yang sama atas alasan merit dan faktanya adalah serupa. Pada Mei 2021, 1MDB telah memfailkan saman terhadap kedua-dua defendan atas dakwaan mereka melakukan pecah amanah dan konspirasi sehingga menyebabkan syarikat itu mengalami kerugian berjumlah US$1.83 bilion berhubung pelaburannya dalam 1MDB-Petrosaudi Ltd, yang kemudian ditukar kepada Brazen Sky Limited investment, dan dikatakan boleh didapati dalam Dana Bridge Global. 1MDB juga mendakwa Arul Kanda dan Mohd Irwan melakukan pecah amanah serta konspirasi dengan menyeleweng dana syarikat itu berjumlah US$3.5 bilion, yang dibayar kepada Aabar Investments dan US$1.265 bilion yang dibayar kepada International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), pada 9 Mei 2017. 1MDB mendakwa Mohd Irwan turut bersekongkol dengan Arul Kanda untuk menyebabkan syarikat itu melaksanakan Perjanjian Pelanjutan Pekerjaan dan membayar jumlah yang besar iaitu RM2,905,200 kepada Arul Kanda mengikut perjanjian tersebut tanpa mengira kepentingan 1MDB sehingga menyebabkan ia mengalami kerugian serta kerosakan. Justeru, 1MDB antara lain menuntut kedua-dua defendan agar membayar US$6.59 bilion bagi pelanggaran itu dan tambahan RM2.9 juta daripada Mohd Irwan berhubung Perjanjian Pelanjutan Pekerjaan. Pada 2022, syarikat itu turut memfailkan saman US$8 bilion terhadap bekas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan tujuh lagi. Kes itu didengar di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad.

Kanda dan Mohd Irwan. Bercakap kepada pemberita selepas itu, peguam Lavinia Kumaraendran yang mewakili Mohd Irwan berkata, memandangkan permohonan tersebut telah ditolak maka perbicaraan kes berkenaan akan diteruskan pada September seperti ditetapkan sebelum ini. Tahun lepas, 1MDB telah memfailkan permohonan untuk kedua-dua saman didengar di hadapan hakim yang sama atas alasan merit dan faktanya adalah serupa. Pada Mei 2021, 1MDB telah memfailkan saman terhadap kedua-dua defendan atas dakwaan mereka melakukan pecah amanah dan konspirasi sehingga menyebabkan syarikat itu mengalami kerugian berjumlah AS$1.83 bilion berhubung pelaburannya dalam 1MDB-Petrosaudi Ltd, yang kemudian ditukar kepada Brazen Sky Limited investment, dan dikatakan boleh didapati dalam Dana Bridge Global. 1MDB juga mendakwa Arul Kanda dan Mohd Irwan melakukan pecah amanah serta konspirasi dengan menyeleweng dana syarikat itu berjumlah AS$3.5 bilion, yang dibayar kepada Aabar Investments dan AS$1.265 bilion yang dibayar kepada International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), pada 9 Mei 2017. 1MDB mendakwa Mohd Irwan turut bersekongkol dengan Arul Kanda untuk menyebabkan syarikat itu melaksanakan Perjanjian Pelanjutan Pekerjaan dan membayar jumlah yang besar iaitu RM2,905,200 kepada Arul Kanda mengikut perjanjian tersebut tanpa mengira kepentingan 1MDB sehingga menyebabkan ia mengalami kerugian serta kerosakan. Justeru, 1MDB antara lain menuntut kedua-dua defendan agar membayar AS$6.59 bilion bagi pelanggaran itu dan tambahan RM2.9 juta daripada Mohd Irwan berhubung Perjanjian Pelanjutan Pekerjaan. Pada 2022, syarikat itu turut memfailkan saman AS$8 bilion terhadap bekas Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan tujuh lagi. Kes itu didengar di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad. - Bernama Ikuti Channel rasmi Sinar Harian di WhatsApp supaya anda tidak terlepas berita-berita terkini daripada kami. Jom! Klik di sini!

Bernama ketika dihubungi. Najib membuat rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 18 Ogos lepas yang mengetepikan permohonan beliau untuk menggugurkan Hakim Sequerah daripada mendengar kes perbicaraannya, selepas hakim itu mendedahkan bahawa dia dan peguam kanan 1MDB Jasmine Loo Ai Swan pernah berkhidmat di sebuah firma undang-undang bersama. Dalam mengetepikan permohonan Najib, Hakim Sequerah yang kini Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan berkata sejak Loo meninggalkan firma berkenaan pada Disember 2008, beliau tidak pernah berkomunikasi dengan Loo, sama ada secara profesional atau peribadi. Loo telah memberi keterangan dalam perbicaraan yang sedang berlangsung, sebagai saksi ke-50. Najib, 70, berdepan dengan empat pertuduhan menggunakan kedudukan beliau untuk mendapatkan suapan berjumlah RM2.3 bilion milik 1MDB dan 21 pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan amaun sama. Perbicaraan bersambung 22 April. - Bernama Nak berita-berita terkini dengan lebih pantas? Jom sertai saluran WhatsApp Sinar Harian: ...

the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Aug 18 last year in dismissing his application to recuse Justice Sequerah from hearing his trial. ALSO READ : July 9 : Hearing of Muhyiddins bid for leave to review courts ruling to reinstate power abuse charges The former Pekan member of Parliament applied to remove Sequerah from the trial after the judge disclosed that he and former IMDB general counsel Jasmine Loo Ai Swan had been partners in a law firm. In dismissing Najibs application to recuse him, Justice Sequerah, now a Court of Appeal judge, ruled that since Loo left the legal firm in December 2008, there has been no communication either on a professional or personal basis between them. Loo has testified in the ongoing trial as the prosecutions 50th witness. Najib, 70, is facing four charges of using his position to obtain bribes amounting to RM2.3 billion belonging to IMDB and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount. The trial will resume on April 22.