KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 8): The High Court on Wednesday heard that there is no evidence suggesting that businessman Datuk Vinod Sekhar had exploited his association with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to seek investments from various parties.
This came from the testimony of Graham David Bell, the only plaintiff witness in the fraud lawsuit that Bell and 11 other investors have filed against Vinod and his wife, Winny Yeap Liew Heoh, in which they are seeking RM30 million in damages.
During cross-examination by defence counsel Datuk Rajan Navaratnam, Bell was repeatedly asked about the allegation that Vinod had leveraged his political connections, including with the prime minister, to solicit investments in his companies.
In response to a direct question from Rajan on whether there was “a shred of evidence” that Vinod had invoked Anwar’s name to solicit money, Bell admitted there was none. He also confirmed that while Anwar’s name appeared in certain email correspondences, it was not used as a means to persuade investors.
When asked if he realised Anwar was incarcerated at the time of the purported investment, Bell said he didn't know.
The exchange went as follows:
Rajan: Did you know that Anwar was in prison at the time of the investment?
Bell: No, I didn’t know.
Rajan then referenced Bell’s witness statement, where Bell, representing 11 other plaintiffs in the suit, had claimed they believed Vinod was trustworthy due to his “connection with influential people with political backgrounds”, including Anwar.
Rajan: So you agree this was merely an assumption from you and the plaintiffs?
Bell: It helped us make a decision to invest.
Rajan: So it was an assumption?
Bell: Disagree.
Bell also denied saying in his witness statement that Anwar had influenced the annulment or reversal of Vinod’s bankruptcy, and that the relevant paragraph in his statement that implied this was false. Rajan then requested that the court expunge that statement from Bell's witness statement.
Rajan also accused Bell and the other plaintiffs of deliberately linking Anwar’s name to the case to create “political colour and pressure”, suggesting the reference was a tool of “extortion before coming to court”. Bell disagreed.
The lawyer then suggested that the lawsuit — filed in May 2023, several months after Anwar became prime minister in November 2022 — was strategically timed to “sow discord” between Anwar and Vinod’s friendship. Bell disagreed.
During proceedings, Rajan also scrutinised the plaintiffs’ contractual claims and noted that their statement of claim had alleged breaches of contract without specifying whether these were oral or written agreements. Bell conceded that there were no written contracts between the plaintiffs, Vinod, or the related companies.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2023 by Bell and the 11 other plaintiffs; 10 were investors and two were former employees of Vinod. They allege fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract concerning investments made in the Petra Group of companies between 2002 and 2005. They claimed Vinod had encouraged investments despite being bankrupt at the time. They also alleged that Vinod's wife, Yeap, had conspired with him to induce the investments.
Bell, under cross-examination on Tuesday, had admitted that many of the allegations were based on assumptions and that so far, no bank records or written proof had been presented to substantiate claims of fraud or misrepresentation, as he had previously claimed in his statement of claim and witness statement.
The trial continues on Thursday before judge Muhammad Adam @ Edward Abdullah, with Bell still on the stand.