KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution in Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor’s RM2 million corruption trial today sought to call an investigation officer from the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) to clarify information on an alleged receipt given by the former minister to a developer.
Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd director Chai Kin Kong had yesterday told the High Court that he had contributed RM2 million in political donations for the Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar by-elections. He then produced a receipt from Umno to prove this.
Today, Chai said he had been questioned about this by a MACC officer.
Deputy public prosecutor Julia Ibrahim then told the court the prosecution would like to call the MACC investigating officer concerned as an additional witness.
However, lawyer Tan Hock Chuan, representing Tengku Adnan, objected to the prosecution’s attempt to call the investigating officer.
He said the prosecution should have surrendered the trial documents to them before the start of trial, as stated under Section 51A of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
In response, Justice Zaini Mazlan said he wanted both the prosecution and defence teams to submit on Section 51A tomorrow.
Earlier today, Chai testified that a MACC officer had asked him about the receipt, said to be from Umno, when he was called for questioning.
“I told the officer that I needed to look for the receipt at home,” he said through an interpreter. He spoke in Cantonese,
Chai recalled that the receipt was given to him a few days after he issued a RM2 million cheque.
A bank officer from CIMB had previously told the court that a RM2 million cheque from Aset Kayamas was deposited into the account of Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd, a company linked to Tengku Adnan.
Tengku Adnan, popularly known as Ku Nan, is accused of receiving RM2 million from Chai despite knowing that the businessman’s companies had dealings with the federal territories ministry, which was under him at the time.
The offence was allegedly committed at the Pusat Bandar Damansara CIMB bank branch here on June 14, 2016.
The charge is framed under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
Those found guilty can be jailed up to two years and fined.