Counsel objects to information provided by MACC investigating officer

Counsel Datuk K. Kumaraendran who is representing Zizie Izette said the complaint made by MACC senior superintendent Mohd Haris Ibrahim,42, who is the 27th prosecution witness was hearsay which could be prejudicial to Bung Moktar.

According to the lawyer, the complaint cannot be considered a first information report (FIR) as it was made based on information received from a senior officer as the third party and not from an informer.

"The prosecution attempted to use the backdoor so that the report was accepted by the court as a statement when no parties came forward to lodge the complaint," he said.

Meanwhile, counsel M.Athimulan who is representing Bung Moktar said the report could not be accepted as a statement as nobody made the report to any MACC officer.

Earlier, Mohd Haris, who is the last prosecution witness in his statement said on June 9, 2016, he received instruction from a senior officer of Putrajaya MACC to write a complaint relating to one case.

Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How however said the complaint was received by the senior officer who was categorised as FIR to enable the investigation to commence.

"This is part of the beginning to an investigation and is not based on the complaint in the report as proof of the prosecution," he said.

Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sophian Zakaria said for an MACC offence, the informer is protected as offence under MACC is special and the procedure in making a report for MACC offence is different from other criminal cases.

According to Section 29(1) of the MACC Act 2009, it is stated that complaints can be made to any MACC officer verbally or in writing and if the complaint is made orally, the complaint has to be changed into the written form and is read to the party making the complaint.

"The court cannot equate the procedure with other investigation cases as MACC protects the informer. Any MACC officer needs to make a complaint upon receiving any information on corruption cases even though the name of the informer is not be stated," said Mohd Sophian.

Sessions Court Judge Rozina Ayob later ordered both parties to submit their written arguments on April 20 before she makes a decision on the objection on April 22.

On May 3, 2019, Bung Moktar, 64, pleaded not guilty to two charges of accepting bribes amounting to RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra's approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.

Bung Moktar, who was the non-executive chairman of Felcra at the time, was accused of accepting bribes from Public Mutual Berhad's investment agent Madhi Abdul Hamid through Zizie Izette at Public Bank's Taman Melawati branch here between 12.30 pm and 5 pm on June 12, 2015.

He also pleaded not guilty to accepting an RM335,500 cash bribe from Norhaili under the name of Zizie Izette for similar reasons, at the same place on June 19, 2015, while Zizie Izette, 44, pleaded not guilty to three charges of abetting her husband in the matter at the same place, date and time.