KUALA LUMPUR (June 10): The High Court has found Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor liable for 43 "missing" pieces of jewellery consigned to her by a Lebanese jeweller in 2018.

High Court judge Datuk Quay Chew Soon ordered Rosmah to pay Global Royalty Trading SAL RM67,461,027.37 within a month of the decision and granted cost of RM75,000 to be paid to the jeweller.

Quay also dismissed Rosmah's third party claim against the Inspector General of Police and the government. This means that the IGP and the government do not have to contribute to the payment to the jeweller. The judge also ordered Rosmah to pay another RM75,000 to these third parties.

Reading out excerpts from his grounds of judgement for about 40 minutes, Judge Quay noted that Rosmah's liability "becomes inevitable" when the relevant legal principles are applied to this case.

He said that among the "decisive facts" were that 44 pieces of jewellery were delivered to and received by Rosmah, the pieces were entrusted to Rosmah for viewing under a consignment arrangement which she never purchased or paid for, and failed to return 43 of the pieces.

Once delivery, possession and non-return are established, "the legal burden no longer rests on the plaintiff to speculate as to what transpired within the defendant's custody”, Quay said.

"The law places that burden upon the defendant [...] because the facts concerning the handling, movement and alleged disappearance of the jewellery lie within the defendant's own knowledge," he said. 

Rosmah claimed that the pieces of jewellery, seized in a raid after the 2018 elections, were in the possession of the authorities at all material times. Therefore, she argued that if the jewellery were lost, the police or the Malaysian government should be made responsible for the losses.

Only one piece of jewellery from the 44 was recovered and returned to Global Royalty.

Judge Quay also noted that according to the law, Rosmah cannot accept possession of "another person's property, retain custody and control over the same", and later brush off any legal responsibility attached to that arrangement.

"The law imposes a burden upon the defendant to properly account for the fate of the plaintiff's jewellery whilst under her custody. I find that the defendant has failed to discharge that burden.

"The non-return of the jewellery by the defendant constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence," he said.

Quay added that the burden of proof therefore shifted to Rosmah to prove that the loss or non-return of the pieces was not a result of her negligence.

"[The] defendant cannot merely say that there was a raid by [the police], items may have been seized, bodyguards handled the bags, or the [police] took possession of certain items, and thereby hope to discharge the burden imposed upon her," he said.

Not only did Rosmah fail to prove the seizure of the 43 pieces, but the judge noted that Rosmah had invited the court to speculate "in her favour concerning what may have happened" to the items.

During the trial, Rosmah, who is the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, testified that she had no time to wear them, but the bag containing the jewellery had been kept safe, under lock and key at the prime minister’s official residence in Putrajaya, with the intention of returning the jewellery.

Following the loss of the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition in early May 2018, Rosmah, who was the sole defence witness, testified that her family moved from Seri Perdana to their personal residence in Jalan Langgak Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

The luxury items, she added, were moved to the Pavilion Residence in Kuala Lumpur.

On Wednesday, Quay said Rosmah's failure to call those who were directly involved in the handling and movement of the jewellery as witnesses did not help her defence.

"[The] defendant attempted to rely on unnamed security bodyguards, [and the] staff butler to explain how the jewellery was packed, how the bags were locked, how the jewellery was transported and safeguarded at Pavilion.

"However, none of those material witnesses were called to testify at the trial. Such omission erodes the defendant’s case," said Quay.

The judge said that with exception of the single piece of jewellery which was accounted for, there was no evidence that the 43 pieces were ever seized by the police.

He said that the law requires proof, and that Rosmah cannot point to the raid and merely invite the court to assume the pieces were seized.

Touching on Rosmah's contention that the six-page consignment note was fabricated, the judge ruled that the final page containing terms and conditions was inserted after Rosmah had signed the document.

"It is my finding that the final page containing the terms and conditions did not form part of the consignment note that was signed by the defendant. I therefore reject the final page," the judge said.

He, however, added that this does not invalidate the entire document, as there is a single clause within the first five pages signed by Rosmah which is related to the delivery and inspection of goods.

In this action, Global Royalty was represented by Datuk David Gurupatham and Venothani Rajagopal, while Rosmah was represented by Rajivan Nambiar and Reza Rahim.

Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the third parties.

When contacted, Rajivan confirmed that Rosmah will be appealing the decision. They will also be filling a stay application to pause the execution of the judgement. 

Read also:
Police claim majority of seized jewellery returned to Rosmah, officer retorts still plagued with ‘nightmares’ on 1MDB
Bags 'filled to the brim' with cash and jewellery, ex-CCID chief says of 2018 luxury condo raid linked to 1MDB
Rosmah admits she accepted Lebanese jewellery for inspection, viewing, but it was jeweller’s hope she would purchase
Lebanese jeweller reiterates Rosmah liable for loss of 43 pieces of jewellery