KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 13): Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor's lawyers sent a third representation letter to the attorney general on Tuesday for the AG to consider dropping the 17 money-laundering and tax evasion charges against the wife of jailed former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Lead defence counsel Datuk Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, representing Rosmah, said as the letter had been sent, the defence was seeking an adjournment of Wednesday’s hearing, as it would be improper for the court to hear Rosmah’s bid to strike out the charges when it's similar to what they wanted the AG to consider.
“If it is to be argued today (Wednesday), it would force the prosecutors to take a stand on the issue,” Firoz Hussein added.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib confirmed to judge Muniandy Kanyappan that the prosecution had received the representation letter on Tuesay, and as it was new, the prosecution had no time to brief AG Datuk Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh on the matter.
Hence, he agreed with the defence that the prosecution needed time to consider the third representation letter. No decisions had been made on Rosmah's past two representations as the AG had yet to consider them.
Normally, representation letters are sent to reduce or drop the charges, but in Rosmah’s case, they seek to withdraw the charges against her.
In fact, Muniandy had on Aug 24 directed the trial to proceed with two witnesses testifying. The previous representation letters were sent in May and August respectively.
While both the defence and prosecution were alluding to postpone the hearing of the striking out application, Muniandy directed both parties to proceed with their submissions.
Rosmah, who turned 72 three days ago and wore an orange dress on Wednesday, is facing 17 charges involving RM7.1 million transferred into her personal bank account between 2013 and 2017.
The charges were framed under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla).
On the first eight counts, Rosmah is charged with money laundering by directly engaging in a transaction involving proceeds of unlawful activities amounting to RM1.1 million that were deposited into her account.
On the ninth to 12th counts, she is charged with directly engaging in 227 transactions involving proceeds of unlawful activities totalling RM6 million, which were also deposited into her account.
On the 13th to 17th counts, she is charged with engaging in money laundering by failing to file a return on the sum that was deposited into her account as required under the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA).
'No disclosure on illegal transactions'
One of the newly appointed defence counsels, Amer Hamzah Arshad, argued that the defence was seeking to strike out the charges, and for the High Court to either order an acquittal or dismissal of the charges against Rosmah.
He argued that the court could freely decide on the issue.
Amer Hamzah said the charges against Rosmah did not reveal what were the illegal transactions or where the illegal proceeds were from, and this made it difficult for Rosmah to prepare her defence.
The lawyer said that based on the charges, the defence was in the dark on whether to argue the defence case based on Section 4 of Amla or money laundering or Section 112 of the ITA for not declaring income tax.
“The defence says that without disclosure of the transactions, the accused is unable to defend herself as to how the dealings took place or the money deposited into her account was from illegal means. Are we now dealing with Section 112 of the ITA, or Section 4 of Amla? You cannot place it all in one charge, as it runs against the principle of duplicity of charges,” he said.
“This is not a case where the accused opened an account to receive unlawful proceeds. This is a fundamental issue, and it is to be noted that the High Court had acquitted senior lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on a similar charge,” the lawyer said.
Here in Rosmah’s case, Amer Hamzah said the prosecution did not identify what were the transactions that were considered illegal to frame an offence under money laundering.
This, he told Muniandy, would lead the charges to be considered as groundless.
Amer Hamzah said judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin recognised this in Shafee’s case, and decided to acquit the senior lawyer without his defence being called.
He added that recently, the prosecution also withdrew its appeal in Shafee’s case, recognising Jamil’s judgement and the deficiency in the charges against Shafee, which were quite similar to the case against Rosmah.
“The AG should be given time to consider our point, as it is not unprecedented, after studying Jamil’s grounds,” the lawyer said, adding that the charges against Rosmah would have to be drafted properly and comply with the law.
As one were to observe, Amer Hamzah added, the charges against Rosmah had failed to disclose the predicate offence (namely where the illegal money originated from).
Amer Hamzah said he and M Reza Rahim would have to take another day to continue submissions on the striking out application, as Amer Hamzah indicated that he was unwell to resume.
Ahmad Akram, who appeared with DPPs Mustaffa P Kunyalam, Poh Yih Tinn and S Deepa Nair, had no objection to the hearing being continued on another day.
Following this, Muniandy fixed Jan 16 and Jan 17 next year for continued hearing of Rosmah’s striking out application.
The judge also directed Ahmad Akram to inform the court earlier should the AG have any decision on the representation letters sent before the hearing dates.