K Rajen Gunaretnam said that Consortium Zenith BUCG (Zenith) senior director Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli had asked him to look for a Maurice Lacroix watch sometime in 2015.
Zarul was implicated in Lim’s two corruption charges. Lim was alleged to have asked Zarul for a 10% cut of the profits from the undersea tunnel project, and allegedly sought RM3.3 million in kickbacks from the businessman.
Lim also faces two counts of dishonestly misappropriating RM208.7 million worth of state land given to two companies.
“I bought the watch for RM20,000 from the supplier and sold it to Zarul for RM40,000,” Rajan told the court.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin then asked Rajen why there was such a “big difference” in the price, to which the witness said brokers usually made 35-50% profit from the sale.
“It is a normal practice in the sale of luxury items,” Rajen added.
When questioned by Lim’s lawyer Gobind Singh Deo if the witness knew why Zarul bought the watch, Rajan said Zarul bought watches for his employees and himself.
“When I get some good watches, I will call and inform him about it. Zarul would ask me to bring the watches to his office,” he added.
Rajan said that he had never met Lim before, adding that he did not know of any link between Lim and the watches he sold to Zarul.
Earlier today, Muhamad Azrai Mohamad Zaini, a former employee of the State Economic Planning Unit (Upen), testified in the same trial.
Gobind questioned him over his witness statement in which Azrai mentioned that Zenith was to appoint an independent consultant to prepare the request for proposal (RFP) papers before an open tender was called.
“But in the MOU (memorandum of understanding) between the state and Zenith, there was no mention of appointing a consultant.
“Why would you include them when you cannot remember the details of something that happened 10 years ago? There is no basis for you to do so,” Gobind said.
Azrai said he recalled that such an issue was brought up during the state officers’ meetings with Zenith’s representatives in 2011.
Gobind: Why did you not raise your objection back then over Zenith’s presence in the meetings to prepare the RFP?
Azrai: I was only doing my job in calling the meetings between state government servants and Zenith. I think it is more appropriate for the other higher-ranking officers, like the state secretary, to voice out.
Azrai then agreed with the defence’s suggestion that he was not aware of the details in the final RFP papers, which was completed one year later.
During re-examination, Wan Shaharuddin asked Azrai to state his stand on whether he thought it was appropriate for Zenith’s representatives to join state government officers in preparing the RFP papers.
“There is no problem with that. But I think it is not right for them to join in the open tender process,” Azrai said.
Gobind then pointed out that Azrai had contradicted his testimony as the witness had said Zenith’s representatives should not attend the meetings in the first place.
“If possible, I would want to cross-examine him further or include this point in my submissions later,” he said.
Judge Azura Alwi said the defence can raise this purported contradictory statement during submissions.
The hearing continues tomorrow.