KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 10): Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) analyst Adam Ariff Mohd Roslan denied suggestions that his 76-page report on 1Malaysia Development Bhd's (1MDB) transactions and money trails was “intelligent guesswork”, maintaining that the evidence he had been given was sufficient to make his conclusions.

At the High Court here on Tuesday, Adam, who is testifying as the prosecution's 47th witness at the 1MDB-Tanore trial of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, was being cross-examined by lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who disputed the relevancy of Adam's testimony.

Shafee had zeroed in on documents Adam referred to regarding Good Star Ltd, an outfit linked to fugitive financier Low Taek Jho (Jho Low), after Adam had testified that he had received documents from Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigating officers in mapping out his charts of the 1MDB money trails.

Shafee then walked Adam through 1MDB funds which had been transferred to Good Star Ltd, and suggested that Adam's analysis was merely an opinion based on the documents given to him by the MACC.

Adam said the MACC did not give him banking documents to show that monies from these two entities — Good Star and 1MDB — had trickled into Najib’s personal bank accounts.

“I took the view of the fact that the bank statements showed the same amounts and the same dates," Adam said, referring to bank statements of Good Star and 1MDB.

Shafee then referred Adam to his statement, where he testified that US$24,500,000 (RM115,934,000) was transferred to Riyad Bank by Good Star.

Adam had verified documents earlier on the stand that Good Star had two accounts with RBS Coutts — 11116073.2006 and 11116073.2000.

Shafee then asked him how he knew that the money sent by Good Star to Riyad Bank was from 1MDB funds and not from a separate deal between the two entities. Adam replied that he would not know.

This transaction is of importance because Adam had previously testified that based on the bank statements of the only accused in the case — Najib — for the AmBank account ending 694, US$20,000,000 came from the same Riyad Bank account which he believed originated from Good Star funds.

Shafee: You made a guess because of proximity and the dates that money went into Najib’s account.

Adam: I would not call it a guess, it's an assumption.

Shafee: You are aware assumptions can be made without evidence?

Shafee then asked him why he didn’t ask the MACC for the said documents, to which Adam replied that he did but the MACC didn’t give them to him.

Shafee: The MACC didn't give you documents from Riyad Bank?

Adam: No.

When the senior lawyer suggested that the witness would not have any clue if the Riyad Bank account was "loaded with funds from elsewhere", Adam agreed.

Shafee: You cannot make a conclusion in a scientific way that the US$10 million (deposited into Najib’s account) on two occasions originated from Good Star.

Adam: In a scientific way, no.

Shafee: [It is] an opinion based on intelligent guesswork.

Adam: I disagree. I don't have the evidence on that bank account, but I do have evidence prior to and after the transfer, and feel as an analyst that the evidence is sufficient.

Shafee then explained Najib’s defence in the trial — that being Najib's "full belief" that the money that had entered into his account had come from the Saudi Arabia King.

Shafee: I'm putting it to you whether the two US$10 million in fact came from the [late] King Abdullah.

Adam: I can only confirm that it came from Prince Faisal.

“He was of full belief, the amount doesn’t matter. What matters is 'did Najib know that money originated from 1MDB?'. You (Adam) took two years to make up your mind about the money trails. Have you seen it from Najib’s perspective as to what was in his mind when he got the money?" Shafee asked.

Adam replied that he did not need to do that as he was tasked to corroborate what the MACC had already investigated.

Shafee then asked him whether he had concluded that the US$20 million had originated from 1MDB funds because it was in line with what the MACC had told Adam.

Adam, 29, replied: “No, it was facts that the dates are close and the amounts are the same and I reasonably believe that these sources are the same funds.”

Earlier in the day, Shafee had intimated to judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah that he is disputing the relevancy of Adam’s testimony as the analyst isn’t an expert witness.

Sequerah then asked Shafee to continue with his cross-examination of the witness and that the submissions to the relevancy of Adam’s testimony can be taken at the end of the trial.

The judge added that if the defence's position was that Adam's testimony is not relevant, then Shafee would not have to go through the money trail.

Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib said the prosecution's stand is that Adam is a witness of fact.

“[He] is a witness of fact. He gave evidence of facts. Failure of cross-examination amounts to acceptance. [It is] as simple as that," Akram said.

According to Section 45(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, situations where expert opinion evidence is admissible are when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or science or art, or as to the identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions.

Shafee then continued with his cross-examination.

For receiving the money, Najib is facing four counts of abuse of power for using his position as prime minister, finance minister and chairman of 1MDB's board of advisers to receive gratification worth RM2.28 billion.

Najib also faces 21 counts of money laundering involving over RM4.3 billion.

The Edge is covering the trial live here.

Users of The Edge Markets app may tap here to access the live report.