Rosmah seeks to recuse judge from RM7mil money laundering case

Rosmah, 69, who filed the application in the High Court, through Messrs Geethan Ram on Nov 2, also applied for an order that, following Justice Mohamed Zaini's move to recuse himself, the case should be set before another High Court judge.

Based on the notice of application, Rosmah, the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, filed the application on the grounds that Justice Mohamed Zaini is the judge presiding over her corruption case involving a solar hybrid project in Sarawak.

On Feb 18, Justice Mohamed Zaini ruled that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against Rosmah, and ordered her to enter her defence in the graft case, in which the proceedings are to resume on Dec 8.

Rosmah claimed that statements and exhibits that have been tendered before the court in the solar case could directly or indirectly influence Justice Mohamed Zaini if he was to preside over the money laundering case.

"The applicant's right to a fair trial is protected as a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution, and that right will be severely prejudiced and pointless if the judge hears the case," Rosmah claimed in the application.

Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent, who represented Rosmah, when contacted said that today was set for the management of the case before High Court deputy registrar Catherine Nicholas.

Rosmah is facing 12 money laundering charges involving RM7,097,750 and five counts for failing to declare her income to the Inland Revenue Board.

The offences were allegedly committed at Affin Bank Berhad, Bangunan Getah Asli branch, ground Floor, 148 Jalan Ampang here between Dec 4, 2013 and June 8, 2017, and the Inland Revenue Board, Kompleks Bangunan Kerajaan, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim here between May 1, 2014 and May 1, 2018.

The charges of money laundering were framed under Section 4(1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, punishable under Section 4(1) of the same law, which provides for imprisonment of up to 15 years and a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the proceeds of unlawful activity, or RM5 million, whichever is higher, on conviction.

The charges for tax evasion, made under Section 77(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967, said that she failed to furnish returns of her income for the assessment years 2013 to 2017 to the IRB director-general on or before April 30, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 without reasonable excuse, contrary to Section 112 of the law.