KUALA LUMPUR:The High Court here ruled that the RM2 million given by Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong to Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor had remained in his Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd’s (THSB) account for his benefit and that he had used the company as a facade to receive the fruits of his crime.

Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan in his 87-page judgment said there was no evidence to prove that Tengku Adnan had withdrawn the money from THSB account to pay for the expenses of the Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections in 2016, even if the court were to accept that Datuk Rizalman Mokhtar and Datuk Zakaria Dullah had received cash from the accused.

Rizalman was appointed as the Head of Operations for the Sungai Besar by-election at that time while Zakaria was the coordinator for the Barisan Nasional (BN) Youth volunteer project.

Justice Mohamed Zaini said that Tengku Adnan allegedly advanced slightly more than RM2 million for the by-elections were afterthoughts.

“However, it is therefore established that the accused used the Tadmansori as a facade to receive the fruits of his crime,” said the judge, who sentenced Tengku Adnan to 12 months in jail and RM2 million fine, in default six months’ jail, after finding him guilty on a graft charge with receiving RM2 million from a businessman in 2016.

The judge said Tengku Adnan was not demonstrated at all the source of the cash that he had allegedly given to Rizalman and Zakaria.

“He claimed to have given them cash. He contended that he had asked Tan Sri Chai to pay to Tadmansori, as he had advanced his own money.

“If this was the case, he should then be able to show withdrawals from the Tadmansori bank account. There was none. The accused did not proffer any explanation.

“There was no evidence of the source for the cash that he had allegedly given to Rizalman and Zakaria. It is crucial to show that the cash he had allegedly forked out first came from Tadmansori's bank account to justify his instructions to Tan Sri Chai to make the cheque payable to Tadmansori. In my judgment, the accused had pocketed the RM2 million for himself,” he said.

The judge said the court was unable to accept that Tengku Adnan alone was entrusted to raise funds for the two by-elections as these two constituencies were not in his domain as the Federal Territories BN/UMNO chairman.

“He was furthermore not the treasurer as claimed. I am also disinclined to accept testimonies of Rizalman and Zakaria including the budget sheets presented.

“In my opinion, their testimonies were concocted after the event, in an attempt to buffer Tengku Adnan's defence. There is no evidence to prove that the accused knew that he would be getting RM2 million from Tan Sri Chai,” he added.

The judge further said that the former Federal Territories Minister had maintained that he is a man of means.

“I accept the accused’s contention that he did not intend to brag when declaring his worth and that he merely wanted to assert that the RM2 million was not an amount that would entice him. The RM2 million, in my view, is a substantial amount of money, even for a millionaire. It is fallacious to think that a wealthy person is incapable of committing wrong to make financial gains,” he added.

Justice Mohamed Zaini said the UMNO receipt alone cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof that the RM2 million was a political donation.

“I have grave reservations on the UMNO receipt for several reasons. Firstly, I find it incredible that Tan Sri Chai did not think it was crucial to inform the MACC officers of the existence of the UMNO receipt when he appeared before them several times for this statements to be taken,” he said.

The judge said the receipt issued before the UMNO receipt (receipt number 376240) was dated Nov 12, 2018, and the one after it, (receipt number 376242) was dated Nov 16, 2018.

However, the judge said the UMNO receipt in question was on June 14, 2016.

“All the other receipts in that receipt book were in sequence, save for the UMNO receipt. The first receipt in the book was dated Aug 24, 2017, and the last one was dated May 6, 2019. The UMNO receipt was glaringly the only one out of sequence,” he said.

Explaining further on UMNO receipt, Justice Mohamed Zaini said it made no sense for UMNO to issue the receipt when the cheque was not banked into its account.

“If the money was indeed meant for UMNO, the latter could have instead given Tan Sri Chai or Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd (AKSB), any other form of acknowledgement for the alleged donation given, such a letter for example, and not a receipt. Any auditors auditing UMNO's accounts would question the UMNO receipt, as there was no payment of RM2 million made into UMNO's account," he said.

The judge said the accused's contention that the payment was for the benefit of UMNO could only be accepted if there was a corresponding payment to UMNO from Tadmansori.

“There was none. The money trail stopped with Tadmansori. In fact, the evidence shows that Tadmansori has never had any dealings with UMNO. This was established by Tadmansori's own employees,” he added.

The judge said Tengku Adnan lamented that the charge against him was irrelevant and was a ploy by UMNO and BN's rivals to upend them by targetting him.

“The accused's complaint is not novel. He is not the first politician charged for a criminal offence and complained of a political conspiracy. I would only need to hearken back to the 1970s. The late Datuk Harun Idris, a well-known politician, who was then the Chief Minister of Selangor, and a rising star in the ranks of UMNO, was charged with two others for forgery for the purpose of cheating and criminal breach of trust,” he said.

Meanwhile, when imposing the sentence on Tengku Adnan, Justice Mohamed Zaini said the accused was not the first high-ranking public servant and politician to be charged and convicted under Section 165 of the Penal Code.

“I do not doubt that the accused has served the nation for many years, and that is a criterion that I have taken into consideration. The foremost consideration however in deciding the appropriate sentence is public interest. The sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence committed.

“In passing a sentence, the court will need to among others follow precedents. This is to ensure uniformity in sentencing and avoid disparity that will only serve to send the wrong message to the public,” the judge added.

-- BERNAMA