Day four of the Rosli Dahlan trial: the MACC is made to eat shit
In Ramli’s trial, the Defence thought there were only two cover reports — R/No. 098/2007 and R/No. 075/2007. However, in a grueling cross-examination yesterday, Kevin disclosed the existence of two additional “cover reports”. Nevertheless, none of these cover reports implicated RamIi in any crime.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Yesterday, in the fourth day of Rosli Dahlan’s trial, Kevin Morais was caught lying under oath during cross-examination by Dato’ K. Kumaraendran. Kevin admitted that there were several “cover” reports lodged, all aimed at fixing up Dato’ Ramli Yusuff, the then Director of the CCID.
In Ramli’s trial, the Defence thought there were only two cover reports — R/No. 098/2007 and R/No. 075/2007. However, in a grueling cross-examination yesterday, Kevin disclosed the existence of two additional “cover reports”. Nevertheless, none of these cover reports implicated Ramli in any crime.
Kevin said he relied on R/No. 098/2007 (the first report) lodged by MACC Officer Azmi Ismail to issue the Section 32 Notice against Ramli. It was then disclosed that this first report was based on another report — R/No. 075/2007 (the second report) — filed by another MACC officer, Fikhri. However, this second report also did not mention Ramli’s name.
The explosive revelation by Kevin, and something no one realised earlier, is that this second report in turn relied on yet another report — R/No: 072/2007 (the third report) – which, yet again, also made no mention of Ramli. In fact, this report actually stated that the underworld operator named Moo Sai Chin had alleged that Dato’ Johari Baharom, the Deputy Minister then, and several Ministry officers, received RM4 million from Moo to secure his release from detention without trial (under the EO).
And as if that was not explosive enough, Kevin revealed that the third report in turn relied on still a fourth report R/No. 065/2007, which also made no mention of Ramli but again referred to Johari Baharom as having received bribes.
In March 2007, Johari Baharom and the IGP, Musa Hassan, were locked in an open feud that was much publicised by the mainstream newspapers. Johari had accused the IGP of working hand-in-glove with the loan shark and illegal gaming syndicate and received bribes of RM2.2 million. An anonymous blog then appeared (which had only a single posting) alleging that Johari received RM4.4 million in bribes for releasing some underworld operators from detention.
Recently, Malaysia Today published the Statutory Declaration of the IGP’s ADC who stated that Musa conspired with Christopher Wan, then Director of the CID, to fix up Johari by creating a fake blog. It appears, from what was revealed by Kevin yesterday, that Moo was the pawn used by the IGP to make the allegations against Johari. And this is what R/No. 072/2007 and 065/2007 show.
If we trace the timeline it all becomes very clear. Musa becomee IGP on 9 September 2006. One month later, on 9 October 2006, Moo is detained upon the orders of the IGP. Musa then gets ACP Sanusi Sidek of the PDRM Tatatertib to frighten the shit out of Moo. Moo was then forced to implicate Ramli who at that time was tipped to be the next Deputy IGP — and therefore the next IGP upon Musa’s retirement.
And the rest, as they say, is now history and Musa is on his third term as IGP and is on the way to his fourth term next year because ‘there is no suitable successor’ — as the excuse goes.
The transcripts of the proceedings plus copies of the reports can be read below. It is a bit lengthy but certainly worth reading.
Day 4 Trial of Rosli Dahlan: 5th January 2010
Continued Cross-Examination of Kevin Morais
Dato’ Kumaraendran (Dato K) – We have asked a few documents from the DPP, which he said he will give to me. Did you bring these documents?
DPP – Its ok, Dato can ask the questions with regards to the documents.
Dato K – We have asked for the notice sent to Dato Ramli Yusuff (DRY), akaun-akaun bank yang dirujuk oleh Kevin. Did you bring them today Kevin?
DPP – which do you need?
Dato K – The bank accounts of Moo Sai Chin (MSC) that you referred to when you sent a notice to Rosli Dahlan (RD).
DPP – Which do you want, notice or accounts?
Dato K -Don’t be difficult DPP.
Kevin (K) – Yes I brought the accounts and notice.
Dato K: I need to save the time of the court. I don’t want to stop every time to refer to a document. Yet, the DPP wasn’t prepared to give the documents.
1. Kamu katakan MSC buat bayaran melalui syarikatnya, benar?
K – Benar
2. Kevin, kamu bergantung pada bank statement tersebut?
K – Yes.
3. You have brought the accounts?
K – Yes.
4 Tolong serahkan
K – Okay.
5. Kevin, the company from which the cheques were issued are from Shuttle Eight?
K – Yes.
6. You agree that MSC doesn’t appear as a shareholder or director of Shuttle Eight?
K – If I’m not mistaken, we did a search on Shuttle Eight. I can’t remember the search results at this point of time.
7. Your honor, can I show the witness the company search. Could you please look at the company search that we made? You agree MSC’s name was never shown there as a shareholder or as a director?
K – It depends on the dates you are asking for, because your search is for from 2007 whereas I was referring to 2002.
8. Can you get a copy of the search that you did? Can you produce it if asked?
K – Yes.
9. Saya katakan that MSC was never a director or shareholder of that company.
K – I can’t answer that question right now until I see the documents held by the IO.
10. Do you agree that you have to first ascertain that MSC was a director or shareholder of that company before you can use that company’s bank account, before you send a notice under s. 32 against DRY?
K – Ia adalah antara factor-faktor yang diambil kira.
11. You kata dia keluarkan RM 25k. Bila dia keluarkan?
K – Dia tidak sebut masa yang ditetapkan. Dia kata tiap tiap bulan dia beri.
12. When was the first payment?
K – I can’t remember ….
13. (Kevin took 20 minites pretending to look at the documents). Please ask the permission of the court to refer to your documents. If not it will take a long time.
14. Can’t you tell by the looking at the statement of accounts? Can you say by looking at the statement if any payment was made for RM 25k by cheque?
K – It says the is a payment for RM 26k.
15. Yes, but my question is about RM 25k, which you said was paid to DRY.
K – The statement just says a cheque of 26k, this is in the 31 Dec 1999 – 1st January 2000 statement.
16. Notice will be marked as P10. Accounts as P11.
17. Can you please refer to P11. Bila cheque 26k dikeluarkan?
K – 3 Jan 2001.
18. You said that you bergantung kepada percakapan MSC that he made payment of RM 25k to DRY. So where is it in the statement of account about this RM 25k?
K – Yes, MSC said that he took out RM 26k, but only gave RM25k to DRY.
19. You are changing your evidence. According to your evidence-in-chief (EIC) and the cross-examination, the first payment was in 1999. Based on this statement that you produce, adakah you setuju ini menunjukkan MSC keluarkan duit pada 2001, tapi bayar pada 1999?
K – He said he paid from 1999-2002.
20. Did you bring the 1999 accounts?
DPP – To facilitate this proceeding, can we call the IO to find the documents?
21. I object to the IO at this stage. Kevin is now witness and must answer what he relied on. IO is an important witness to confirm if Kevin is true. So IO bukan sekarang. Kevin jawab dulu.
DPP – It would be easier if the IO is here. Saya nak cuba buat senang untuk semua pihak.
DPP request break @11am to sort out the documents
22. Kevin, before we start, you said you have the 1999 company search of Shuttle Eight?
K – Yes.
23. Did you see this search sebelum keluarkan Notis kepada DRY?
K – Yes.
24. But this search isn’t in the file?
K – No.
25. Why isn’t it in the file?
K – The search was for DRY but it is not in the RD file case.
26. After 2pm can you get the search?
K – I will try.
27. Saya katakan, Kevin, that in the search, MSC was never there as a shareholder or a director.
K – If I am not mistaken his name was there.
28. Saya refer to the earlier cross examination of you, you said “Saya juga telah merujuk keada penyata bank MSC, yang menunjukkan dia telah keluarkan RM25k setiap bulan dari 1999-2002. Is that your statement?
K – Yes.
29. Maksud awak, MSC telah keluarkan 25k tiap-tiap bulan, setiap bulan pakai cek?
K – Yes.
30. Tapi you tak nampak cek itu?
K – I just saw the statement of accounts, not the cheques.
31. Saya tunjukkan akaun tahun 2000, bermula dari January 2000 till December 2000. Saya minta izin, mark semua ini. Marked as (D12, 1-12).
My question is, adakah mana-mana dalam akaun ini, from January- December 2000, was there any cheque issued for RM25k?
K – RM 26k yes, but not for RM25k.
32. Don’t be smart. My question is specific. Was there a cheque issued for RM25k each month?
K – 31st July to 31st August 2000, there is a cheque for 25,000.20.
33. Again you are trying to be funny. My question is, was there a cheque for RM25k, I did not ask about RM25,000.20
K – (No answer)
DPP – Defence should let the witness speak.
Dato K – I would appreciate if the DPP don’t keep butting into my cross-examination.
K – Apart from what I said earlier, about payment for RM 25,000.20, there is nothing else.
34. So there was no amount of RM25k?
K – Yes.
35. You had given evidence earlier that MSC has taken out RM 25k every month. Today you confirm that there is no RM 25k been taken out? Why is it so difficult to give a straight answer? Please do not be evasive.
K – Tidak, I don’t agree.
36. Now, show me where RM25k has been taken out.
K – What I’m saying is, RM 25k adalah daripada RM 26k yang dikeluarkan.
37. No, your answer is very clear in your evidence earlier. You stated that MSC withdrew RM 25k every month. You confirmed that that was your evidence? Now with your new statement, would you agree with me, what you stated is wrong?
K – (No answer from the witness)
DPP – Defence mengasak saksi, biarlah dia jawab apa dia hendak bukan memaksa beri jawapan yang defence hendak.
Judge – Never mind, please proceed.
38. I put it to you – You are lying under oath!
K – Tidak yang Arif.
39. Look at December statement, exhibit D12(12) December 2000.
Judge – Which exhibit is this?
Defence – D12(1).
40. Kevin, D12(1) cheque no. 671043 for RM26k, this was highlighted by the learned DPP which the DPP can confirm, can you confirm this?
It doesn’t matter.
In your cross examination in DRY’s trial, and the EIC in this trial, did you in any way clarify to the court in DRY trial and here, that the RM 25k was taken as part of the RM 26k from the account?
K – I can’t remember.
41. In the EIC of RD trial, you were asked about the RM 25k. Did you clarify that it was from the RM 26k.
K – Ia tidak ditanya.
42 You are trying to be smart. You also said, correct me if I am wrong, semua cheque itu ialah ‘cash cheque’, you said this during this hearing. Can you look at the accounts and tell me where it is stated that it is a cash cheque. D12(1-12).
K – It was from the cheque butts. I looked at the cheque butts.
43 My question is specific, when you look at the statement, can you say they are cash cheques?
K – No.
44. Did you clarify this in the EIC?
K – Ia tidak ditanya?
45. The cheque butts, we willl look at it later on. Can you produce it?
K – If ordered by the court, we can produce it.
46. This is the 2001 accounts, can we mark it D13 (1-12).
Would you agree with me Kevin, that there wasn’t a RM 25k withdrawal for each month? If there is, please tell the court.
K – RM25k tepat dan genap tiada Yang Ariff
47 Looking at the statement, can you tell if the cheques issued by the company were cash cheques?
K – From the statement, I can’t tell.
48. I mark this D14 from January 2002 to December 2002. D14(1-12).
Could you tell the court, if I have missed something, was there any RM 25k taken out?
K – No, there is no such sum of RM 25k.
49. And, you can also confirm that looking at D14, you cannot say that those cheques are cash cheques?
K – Ya, tidak boleh.
50. From January 2003 till December 2003, please be marked as D15(1-12).
K – I don’t think 2003 was in the scope of our investigation. I did not consider 2003 when I looked at the IP.
51. So you want to stop at 2002. Okay, no problem. I won’t mark them. In the accounts, there were various figures: of RM 30k, RM 50k , RM 60k. Can you confirm, by looking at MSC statement (D9), that this is the statement that you relied on to issue your notice.
K – This is one of the factors.
61. Does it say anywhere in the statement, that MSC withdrew a bigger sum and gave DRY RM 25k?
K – No, he didn’t.
62. Did you call for the cheques that were used to give the money?
K – No I didn’t call for the cheques.
63. You wouldn’t know whether the cheques had gone into any account or not, because you had not seen the cheques?
K – Tidak, saya tidak tahu kerana tidak lihat cheque.
64. On hindsight, would you say you should have called for the cheques to confirm if what MSC had said was true?
K – Not necessary to do that.
65. So, you simply decided to rely on a criminal’s word?
– No, we also had other information too.
65. Before you issued the notice to DRY, wouldn’t it have been better to confirm that the cheques had gone to DRY’s account or somebody else’s account?
K – Tidak semestinya bagitu.
66. You just relied on the word of a convict?
K – No, I also relied on the bank statements and cheque butts.
67. By relying on the bank statement, which has clearly shown there is no issuance of RM 25k; there is no clarification in the statement by MSC that from the money he drew, whatever large sum he drew, he had paid DRY.
Would you agree, in the absence of this, the issuance of the notice, the first notice to DRY was bad?
K – No Your Honor.
68. In your evidence at the EIC in this trial, you said you relied on the police report P2, which is 098/2007, made by Azmi bin Ismail.
K – Not only P2, but other reports as well.
69. Would you agree with me, 098/2007 relied on the report of 075/2007.
K – Yes I think so, memang benar.
70. Did the name of the word Dato Ramli (DRY) appear in R/No: 075/2007.
K – I am not too sure.
71. Saya bacakan R/No. 098/2007 “Berdasarkan aduan ibu pejabat 075/2007, disyaki Datuk Ramli Yusuff (reads the report out)?” So isn’t it true, you are referring to report 075/2007?
K – Yes I am.
72. Now can you look at report 075, (P1). Does it talk about DRY taking money?
K – Tidak.
73. You tengok statement D9 (MSC statement). There is a report number on the top. What is the number?
K – 072/2007.
74. So you now agree that MSC’s statement was recorded based on R/No. 072/2007. Another cover report that we do not know of?
K – Yes.
75. Did you sight the report?
K – Kalau tak silap saya, ada saya lihat.
76. Now looking at 072/2007, is there any way that DRY has been implicated taking money?
K – No.
77. This report specifically says that Dato Johari Baharum has taken corrupt money from MSC?
K – Ya, it also says ada beberapa pegawai lain juga mengambil wang rasuah.
78. Yet again this 072/2007 refers to another R/No. 065/2007 (Marked as D16). Did you call for the R/No. 65/2007? Should you have as an experienced DPP?
K – I don’t claim to be an experienced DPP. Yes, I didn’t call for the report (D16).
DPP – Object. Witness said he has not seen to R/No. 065/2007. So no point to ask him about that report as this means that whatever he will say is hearsay.
Dato K – My purpose is, having seen that 072 relied on 065, Kevin should have called for R/No. 065/2007 and then only can he come to a reasonable ground whether to issue a notice.
DPP – You don’t need to call R/No. 065/2007 because it is not relevant, and it is hearsay.
Dato K – I am not relying on an irrelevant report. Why is DPP so afraid to go this route? Can this R/No. 065/2007 be marked as D16.
79. Kevin, now look at R/Nos. 075; 072; and 065, isn’t it true that MSC never implicated DRY?
K – I don’t understand the question.
80. Did MSC make a report to the BPR?
K – No
81. R/No. 072/2007 was made on 7th March 2007.
K – Yes.
82. Did any of your officers tell MSC to make an ACA report?
K – I don’t know.
83. Would you agree with me that the name DRY came out of the blue when the statement was recorded from MSC?
K – If we follow the chronology, the first report 072 (D16- lodged on 7th March 2007. Statement of MSC was also taken on 7th March. DRY name came from the statement.***
84. When was MSC statement recorded?
K – 7th March 2007.
85. What time, 10.35 am?
K – Yes.
84. Look at ID3. Fikri is a BPR officer?
K – Yes.
85. This was made on the 8th of March. One day after that. After MSC’s statement was recorded, Fikhri lodged R/No. 072/2007, yet his report still did not mention nor implicate DRY, true?
K – Yes.
86. Only one month later in R/No.098/2007, having dwelled upon for one month, a bright idea from BPR officer Azmi, a report was lodged that implicated DRY!
K – (No answer)
87. ID3, made on 8th of March 2007, one day after MSC gave his statement. Can you just confirm that in that report DRY’s name didn’t come up. Confirm that?
K – Yes, true.
88. I put it to you; you didn’t apply your mind on the full facts of the case to come to a conclusion that the suspect has committed an offence.
K – Tidak benar. I followed the chronology of events.
Proceedings stop at 1pm. Adjourned till 2pm
Dato K – Could this be marked IDD 17, this is the report number.
89. In DRY trial, you were asked what were the documents that you relied on before you issued the notice.
K – Yes I remember the question.
90. When you were asked that question, the documents you relied on before you issued the s.32 notice, what were the documents?
K – I have to refer to the notes of evidence.
91. I can lend you the notes. You said you relied on the 2 police reports, 098/2007 and 075/2007 and the bank statements of the company.
DPP – I object, where are the notes of evidence? Are they real?
92. What were the documents you relied on before you issued the notice under s32(1) to DRY?
K – Reports number 098/2007 and 075/2007, the MSC’s statement and also the bank statements.
93. Any other documents you relied on?
K – report yang lagi satu, report 072/2007, dan penyata akaun.
94. Any other documents?
K – The cheque butts.
95. In DRY trials, did you mention the cheque butts?
K – I can’t remember whether that is something that I mentioned.
96. I put it to you cheque butt was never raised by you in DRY’s trial.
DPP – I object.
97. I put it to you that today is the first time you are mentioning cheque butts.
DPP – I don’t think it is necessary to go there. The fact that Kevin says he does not know is enough, you don’t need to put it to him.
98. I put it to you: you didn’t mention anything about cheque butts in Ramli’s trial.
K – If I have the chance to see notes of evidence, I can answer that question.
99. I put it to you that the mention of cheque butts today is an afterthought.
K – I don’t agree.
100. Kevin, in this trial, you said that you took into account as a whole, when you considered RD as an associate. You said RD is a friend of DRY in university.
K – Yes I said that.
102. Secondly, you also said that RD acted for DRY as a lawyer in the Shariah court.
K – Yes.
103. You said he acted as a solicitor for Bonus Circle where DRY has an interest.
K – Yes I said that.
104. You also said RDe acted for Bonus Circle in 2 property transactions.
K – Yes
105. You said, after seeing all these four factors, you say that RD is an associate.
K – Yes, that is what I said.
106. Would you like to add anything?
K – No.
107. Can I refer to s.2 of the Act? Under s.2, there are several categories of persons that can be considered as an associate. Kevin, you said that RD acted as a lawyer for BC in Megan Phileo
K – Yes, benar.
109. What were the documents that you relied on? Is there an SPA?
K – Yes.
110. Do you have a copy of the sale and purchase agreement?
DPP – We don’t have a copy.
Dato – It’s okay, I can provide copies to yourself and the court. (Proceeds to show the SPA to Kevin).
111. Now, would you agree with me, the solicitors for BC in that transaction (ID18) is Nordin Adenan Ismail & Co?
K – Yes I do.
112. Why did you mislead the court when you said that RD was the solicitor for BC in that transaction?
K – No I did not. There is another document.
113. Could you read the agreement to the court.
K – Agreement between Phileo and BC.
114. What was the property for that sale and purchase?
K – Units No B-09-03.
115. This is an S&P. The solicitors that acted for BC are?
K – Nordin Adnan. It doesn’t say they are the lawyers for BC. I know there is another agreement.
116. You come to court, without any documents? You are not prepared? You take things very lightly?
K – (No answer)
117. If this is not the agreement you relied on, is there another S&P Agreement? You said you relied on an S&P Agreement where RD acted for BC. This is the only S&P agreement. If you have any other, produce it. Is there any other S&P Agreement?
K – I do not know whether there is any other agreement or not. I need to check.
Break at 15:20 at the request of the DPP to go and find documents
118. Kevin, were you able to find the any other sale and purchase agreement between BC and Phileo?
K – Yang Arif, saya telah silap bercakap tentang S&P Agreement.
119. Last hearing, you said RD was a solicitor for BC.
K – Seteleah saya semak, sebenarnya ialah untuk Loan assignment. Saya silap cakap. Sekarang saya sedar ia bukan S&P, tapi loan agreement (LA). Saya minta maaf.
120 Did you say in evidence today that RD is a solicitor for BC? You confirm today.
K – Yes.
121. In the last hearing, the EIC, you also said that RD also acted as a solicitor for BC in the purchase of Phileo.
K – Yes.
122. Would you agree with me, that you misled the court when you said RD is the solicitor in the transaction?
K – Saya tidak setuju. Saya hanya silap cakap S&P, tapi sebenarnya ianya adalah LA.
123. I say to you RD didn’t act for BC in the loan agreement?
K – According to the Company Secretary, RD did the loan agreement.
124. That could be hearsay. In the loan agreement, was RD the solicitor?
K – It only mentions Allen Gledhill (AG).
125. Don’t mislead. Look at the signature, who is the lawyer?
K – Ng Sing and Chong Wang Ming. Two names.
126. Is RD in the loan agreement?
K – It’s not stated.
127. RD is also not in the agreement?
K – It was his firm.
128. Are you saying that Allen & Gledhill acted for BC?
K – Yes.
129. Can you look at the loan agreement, marked (D19). Where in the loan agreement shows Allen & Gledhill are acting for BC?
K – On the bottom. It just says Messrs Allen & Gledhill.
130. Who is the first signature?
K – Lim Fang Sing (LFS).
131 Did you find out which firm is she from?
K – No.
132 Read above the signature.
K – Attorney for the bank.
133. Yes, look now at above BC. Who is acting for it?
K – The directors.
134. Who are they? You should know them by heart now, you gave evidence on this in DRY’s trial!
K – I can’t read the signatures.
135. Do you agree A&G acted for the bank?
K – It doesn’t say so, we can’t say that.
137. My question is, who is A&G acting for.
K – It just says Lim Fang Sin.
138. You are being difficult. Can you read loudly, this part.
K – As attorney for and behalf of the bank
140. Can you read this document provided by the DPP.
K – To A&G from Hock Hua Bank (HHB).
DPP: That document, D19, the earlier document is the loan agreement.
141. Read it out, the HHB letter. The bank appoints Allen & Gledhill to act on behalf of the bank for the charge.
K – It doesn’t state here…..
142. The copy from HHB dated 15th February 1999. Mark this exhibit D20. Can you confirm that this is the letter from HHB to A & G?
K – Yes.
142. It says here, enclosed are the following documents, copy of the letter, copy of the agreement, and kindly liase with the borrower. Please prepare a standard ….. Doesn’t that mean that HHB is appointing AG to prepare the loan documents?
K – Not necessarily, it doesn’t say so….
143. You are being really difficult and stubborn. Are they giving A&G these documents for love and affection?
K – I am entitled to my opinion.
143. Nobody asked for your opinion. Just state the facts, you are a witness of fact. Okay, we can go further. Look at the letter. Read it aloud.
K – (Kevin reads it aloud)
144. Now read the last page, loudly. Very loudly, the last paragraph.
K – (Kevin reads it loudly)
145. After all this, are you still saying A&G is still not acting for HHB bank?
K – No, they are not.
146. What is wrong with you? Okay. This is a letter dated 27.11.99 to Nordin Adnan. Read the part where it says we act for HHB.
K – Okay. (Kevin reads it aloud).
147. Could you please confirm on that letter, that A&G acted for HHB.
K – Yes.
148. What are the initials on that letter?
K – LFS.
149. LFS refers to one of the assistants called Lim Fang Seng. Is there such a name there?
K – There is.
150. Can you confirm it is LFS? From A&G to Nordin Adnan.
K – Yes.
151. Look at loan agreement, see the signature, where they say attorney for the bank. Do you still want to say you still do not know that A&G does not act for the bank?
K – (mumbled….)
DPP – Object. The witness has already said he does not know A&G acted for the bank.
152. Can you see a sign by a LFS signed on the loan document?
K – Yes.
153***. Based on this loan document, and the letter from AG that they are acting for the bank, and the other document, dated 15.10.1999, taking all 3 documents together, would you now say that A&G is acting for the bank?
K – I’m still not convinced, because letter of 15 Oct 1999, just says, “ …..”
To me is that a bit peculiar for the bank to say so. That is why I said, there is an interest.
154. Where does it say AG has interest in BC?
K – (No answer)
155. Did BC take a loan?
K – Yes.
156. From which bank
K – HHB.
157. HHB has to get a lawyer right?
K – Yes.
157. Who did they appoint as a lawyer, isn’t it A&G?
K – There is no appointment by them. There is no letter by HHB which clearly says “We appoint you…”
158. Where in those documents (the two letters and the loan agreement) does it say, RD acts for BC?
K – It doesn’t say that RD acts for BC.
159. Do you have any other documents that say A&G or RD acted for BC? Please take your time, subject to what Your Lordship says.
K – There is a letter from A&G, saying that they are not on the panel of HHB.
160. Yes, they are not on the panel. Does not mean they can’t act ad hoc. Is there anything else?
K – There is a letter from A&G to HHB, saying we are not on the panel.
161. Yes, but they still acted on an ad hoc basis for HHB.
162. On these documents, is there anything that says that A&G or RD acted for BC?
K – There is a letter of guarantee, where RD signed as a lawyer.
163***. Guarantee for what, on behalf of whom?
K – Guarantee for the loan, for (two ladies’ names).
164. Do you have a copy of it?
K – yes.
165. This is a loan taken by whom?
K – Roma, Roslina and DRY.
166***. The dates?
K – 15 Dec 1999. It is on behalf of BC, to BC, on paragraph 1.
167. isn’t it true RD signed as a witness, in the presence of…
K – Yes.
168. My question is, is it anywhere in the documents that show RD or A&G acted for the transaction of the sale.
K – If you read it together, they are not on the panel of HHB.
169. You are being very stubborn. Ok. Who appointed HHB?
K – The borrowers have a right to appoint their own solicitors. That’s why this letter of 15 Oct 1999 is a letter where HHB has allowed AG to be appointed solicitors, for the borrower and the bank.
170. Where does it say that they are acting for borrower and the bank?
K – Para 10.
171. Where does it say RD is acting for BC?
K – It’s a point where the bank appointed A&G.
172. Let’s go step by step, do you know a lawyer can only act for 1 side in a loan transaction, it’s against the Legal Profession Act to act for two sides.
173. Are you aware that Nordin Adnan was acting for BC?
K – For the sale and purchase, yes.
DPP: He is referring to letter of guarantee. Why don’t we mark is an exhibit. Marked as P21.
174. Would you agree with me, even if we can stretch the language, there is nowhere to say that HHB is appointing A&G to act for BC?
K – I don’t think HHB is interested in knowing who acts for BC. There is no letter that says from HHB to appoint A&G for BC
175. Is there letter from BC to AG to act for them in the loan document?
K – No.
176. There is no letter from BC requesting AG to act for them in the loan
K – Correct.
177. There is letter from HHB and a letter from AG writing to Nordin. None of these letters are informing A&G that they act for BC.
K – No.
178. Nordin Adnan was acting in the S&P. And in the S&P, he is also applying for a loan.
K – I don’t have the S&P
179. Is there a clause to show that in the event they apply for the loan?
K – It doesn’t say anything about a loan, just says the balance purchase price must be paid.
180. Let me bring you back. You agree that nowhere in the documents show A&G nor RD acted for BC, either in the S&P agreement or in the loan.
K – Not in the S&P. I still hold in the loan that A&G was acting for both sides.
181***. You hold that A&G also acted for BC. How so?
K – Based on the documents, A&G telah bertindak untuk bank in this transaction dan juga untuk BC. This is based on the letter dated 15 oct 1999, the whole letter, the tenor of the letter (P22). Paragraph 10.
182. Read it out.
K – (Reads it aloud)
183. Your reading of that clause, A&G is acting for both sides?
K – That is my reading.
184. The letter from the 2nd paragraph on the 1st page, doesn’t talk about BC.
K – No it doesn’t.
185. Now the letter has been sent to Nordin Adnan, who has been acting for BC in that transaction. When you said that RD was the lawyer in that S&P agreement, you admitted that was a mistake. So you agree you misled the court?
K – I made a mistake.
186. You agree that RD doesn’t appear in the loan document?
K – A&G does appear.
187. You are really difficult. I asked you about RD. Okay, can you look at the letter, how many lawyers are there in A&G?
K – 9 partner, 18 lawyers.
188. You said RD acted for BC through A&G. Would you agree with me, that in the loan, his name doesn’t appear at all?
K – The loan guarantee, it does.
189. How about in the loan documentation that you pointed out.
K – His name doesn’t appear.
190. When you said that RD was not involved, you said you made a mistake.
K – He was involved through the firm.
192. Where does it show RD acted through the firm?
K – He is a partner, from the documentation it seems so.
193. Where is the evidence that RD acted through AG for the loan documentation?
K – The fact that it is from AG where he is a partner, it is enough to convince me that he is involved in the transaction.
194. Would you agree, that you said that RD was a solicitor in the purchase of the Danga Bay property?
Judge: We shall adjourn till tomorrow and you may start on the Danga bay property.
Adjourn to later today, to 6th January 2010.
