KUALA LUMPUR (Aug 24): The prosecution in Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s second criminal trial where she is facing 17 charges of money laundering and tax evasion told the High Court on Thursday (Aug 24) that she has no independent source of income, yet had large sums of money deposited into her current account in Affin Bank Bhd.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib said Rosmah was not gainfully employed, but the prosecution noticed that the monies were deposited through Roslan Sohari, who was at the time the residential house manager of Seri Perdana complex in Putrajaya.
Akram said the first 12 charges (concerning money laundering) pertain to deposits to this account and they were never disclosed as revenue, and were deposited and utilised by her.
The DPP said Rosmah had made false statements concerning the monies paid into her account when she was questioned by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.
“The prosecution will produce as part of its case, statements recorded from the accused under Section 32(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA).
“It is the prosecution’s case that when the totality of the evidence is considered as a whole, the conduct of the accused in all the circumstances of the case fairly supports the irresistible inference that the deposits in question were proceeds of unlawful activity contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of AMLA,” he said
The following is the full excerpt of the opening statement:
1. The accused is the wife of Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak (Najib Razak), the former prime minister of Malaysia. At all times material to the charges before the court, the accused was not gainfully employed.
She therefore had no independent source of any lawful income. Yet, during the relevant period she caused to be deposited large sums of money into her current account no. 10-002000005-8 (account 0058) at Affin Bank Bhd. The sums deposited are wholly disproportionate to the accused’s means.
The accused used the services of one Roslan Bin Sohari’s to make these deposits on her behalf. Roslan was at all material times, the residential house manager of the Seri Perdana Complex in Putrajaya. The monies comprised in these deposits form the subject-matter of the first to 12th charges in this case. For completeness, it must be said that the monies in question were never disclosed [as] revenue as required by written law. Neither was any income tax ever paid on these monies.
2. The monies deposited as aforesaid were subsequently utilised by the accused to pay telephone and credit card bills incurred by the accused and members of her family. She did this through cheques which she signed.
3. The prosecution will prove that the accused when questioned by MACC officers made false statements concerning the monies which she had paid into her account. The prosecution will produce as part of its case, statements recorded from the accused under Section 32(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA).
4. It is the prosecution’s case that when the totality of the evidence is considered as a whole, the conduct of the accused in all the circumstances of the case fairly supports the irresistible inference that the deposits in question were proceeds of unlawful activity contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of AMLA. The evidence that the prosecution will produce will equally establish that the deposits in question can be reasonably believed to be property that are proceeds of unlawful activity.
5. As we have already said, the accused did not declare her deposits as revenue as required by written law. The accused thereby contravened Section 112 of the Income Tax Act 1967, which is a scheduled offence under AMLA. It is therefore a serious offence, the commission of which constitutes unlawful activity and is by definition, money laundering.
6. On the aforesaid facts the prosecution will establish that the accused committed the offence of money laundering as alleged in the charges against her.
7. With the leave of the court, the prosecution will call its first witness.