KUALA LUMPUR (April 13): Global Royalty Trading SAL Ltd (GRTS) maintains that Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor is liable for the purported loss of 43 pieces of jewellery costing millions of ringgit that had been sent to her on Feb 10, 2018.

Its managing director Samer Hassib Halimeh, from Lebanon, said Rosmah, who is the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, was introduced to him by the Sultanah of Brunei.

“That introduction reflected GRTS’ reputation within international jewellery circles. Our transactions are commercial in nature. We do not lend jewellery for publicity purposes,” he said.

Samer was testifying at the High Court on Monday, in GRTS’ US$14.57 million (RM68.30 million) lawsuit against Rosmah, and stated that prior to the Feb 10, 2018, consignment of the jewellery being sent, Rosmah had had prior dealings with GRTS, where she had purchased jewellery on multiple occasions.

GRTS claims that of the 44 pieces of jewellery it had sent to Rosmah, only one (a diamond bracelet) had been recovered from the police following a raid conducted by the police in Pavilion Residences Kuala Lumpur and returned to the Lebanese firm in 2022.

“She (Rosmah) was therefore familiar with Global Royalty Trading’s method of operation, including our consignment documentation and payment procedures.

“I personally oversee its commercial operations, and personally supervised the transaction which forms the subject of this suit. I personally supervised the February 2018 consignment, authorised the delivery of the 44 jewellery items, reviewed in the memorandum (sent), and instructed our lawyers to take action when the jewellery was neither paid for nor returned,” the witness said in replying to questions by his counsel Datuk David Gurupatham of Messrs David Gurupatham & Koay.

Samer added that the delivery was recorded in the memorandum where it itemised each of the jewellery pieces and set out the governing contractual terms of the consignment.

He added that Rosmah had signed and dated the memorandum on May 22, 2018, acknowledging receipt of the valuables and her signature appears on it.

The witness said he could not bring the original copies of the document due to the ongoing war happening in Lebanon with Israel.

“Rosmah has not denied receiving the 44 jewellery items and also in past forfeiture proceedings. She (Rosmah) admitted receiving the items and admitted they had been seized by the Malaysian authorities,” Samer said.

In David’s opening statement to the case tendered in court, the counsel claims that this is a straightforward case, where there are certain facts not in dispute, namely that Rosmah received the jewellery in 2018, she signed the memorandum (acknowledging) receipt in 2019, and she herself asserted that all items had been seized by the authorities.

This, David said, showed that Rosmah had taken possession of the jewellery, and that only one item was ever found out of the 44 items, with 43 items never accounted for, and that the former prime minister’s wife had failed to return the jewellery or make any payment for the same.

“She has no evidence to explain what happened to the remaining 43 pieces. A person who receives valuable property, admits possession, and fails to return it must account for it,” the lawyer added.

Samer agreed when quizzed by Rosmah’s counsel Rajivan Nambiar, that despite claiming that the company had dealt with her on multiple occasions before 2018, the company was not able to show documents over the past dealings.

The Lebanese agreed that out of the 44 items, four pieces of jewellery were said to have been identified from the pictures taken by the police following the seizure at Pavilion and only one of them had been positively identified.

The witness however said that he never made any application to inspect the four pieces of jewellery in police custody, and had only managed to identify the diamond bracelet which was eventually returned to the company as there was no challenge on the item.

He disagreed with Rajivan’s suggestion that the company was not entitled to the claim of the 43 pieces of jewellery.

Meanwhile, to a question from Rosmah’s other counsel Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam, Samer agreed that from 2018 to 2026, the company had not issued a bill of sale (over the jewellery).

However, he disagreed with Rajan that there had been no contractual sales and purchase with Rosmah, and explained when asked by David during re-examination, that the company’s business is based on trust involving tangible assets where the consignments are made to VIPs, royalty, and other well-known clientele.

“We are an international company based in Lebanon, and we have branches in London and New York. We consign goods to jewellers and retail them, and the items are given on trust,” he said.

Samer added that when a customer receives those items, like “Madam Rosmah”, she acknowledges receiving the valuables on her good will and that the recipient is required to exercise it with due care.

The trial continues before High Court judge Datuk Quay Chew Soon on Tuesday.

It is to be noted that Rosmah had brought the Malaysian government as a third party in the suit by the Lebanese firm, due to her claim that the items could have been missing as a result of police seizure.

Read also:
Rosmah admits she accepted Lebanese jewellery for inspection, viewing, but it was jeweller’s hope she would purchase
Lebanese jeweller’s suit against Rosmah gets a third judge
Lebanese firm refiles missing jewellery suit against Rosmah
Rosmah wins appeal to rope in police, govt in Lebanese jeweller's lawsuit against her