The MACC stripped naked in court, again
The following is quite a long court transcript on lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s trial. It is most interesting to read what was revealed during the cross-examination of MACC’s Investigating Officer. If this were the manner in which the MACC operates, I would not want to be one of those being investigated by them. Read on and digest what transpired. But I warn you; you may want to migrate after you read this.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
KLSC Criminal Case No: 62-49-2007
PP vs Rosli Dahlan
Criminal Sessions Court 10
31st May 2010
Coram: Judge Tuan Abu Bakar Bin Katar
Prosecution: DPP Zulqarnain & DPP Suffian
Defence: Dato’ Kumaraendran
Chetan Jethwani
Watching Brief: Mr Teoh Lib Peng from Bar Council
Case Starts at 9.45am.
DPP: Prosection next witness is Encik Saiful Ezra as PW7.
Saiful Ezral (PW7)
Investigating Officer MACCA
Abridged version of Examination-in-Chief
Q1: When did you work for MACCA?
A: I became an investigating officer since 2003.
Q2: Before MACCA, what did you do?
A: I was practicing as a lawyer and joined MACCA since 2003.
Q3: Are you the I.O. for this case?
A: Yes.
Q4: Is it true that you discussed this case with DPP Kevin Morais for 3 months?
A: Yes, I discussed this case with him.
Q5: 3 month from when until when?
A: April 2007 until July 2007.
Q6: As a result of these discussions with Kevin, what was the conclusion and decision?
A: Your Honour, this case today began with the investigation against Dato Ramli Yusuff (DRY). During the 3 months discussion with Kevin, we agreed that firstly an offence has been committed by DRY under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and secondly that Rosli Dahlan (RD) can assist in the investigation against DRY.
Q7: Who is the suspect in this matter?
A: The suspect being investigated in this case is DRY.
Q8: And RD?
A: He was only a witness. He was never a suspect.
(RD’s family and friends exclaimed. Judge smiled and nodded his head several times to RD who was in the dock)
Q42: Refer to P1. P1 says based on the Notice, RD is believed to be a person who can assist in the investigation. What is your basis for taking that view?
A: Firstly, information about the personal relationship between RD and DRY. RD and DRY were close friends since studying in IIU.
Secondly, RD helps DRY a lot in DRY’s personal matter. One example is, based on investigation, RD helped DRY in his divorce case in the Syariah Court in Kuching. DRY also sought many legal advice from RD.
Q43: Personal relationship since university until when?
A: From university until now. I find that they keep a close friendship.
Secondly, RD also managed the assets and interest of DRY. Firstly, about the company Bonus Circle Sdn Bhd (BC) in which DRY has interest.
Based on investigation, the affairs of BC was managed by RD through the legal firm Allen & Gledhill where the Company Secretary of BC works for the firm Allen & Gledhill.
Q44: what is the connection between Allen & Gledhill with RD?
A: RD is one of the partners in Allen & Gledhill.
[A large part of the examination in chief was DPP Zulqarnain making long submissions on Law of Evidence like a legal lecture that annoyed the Judge and wasted a lot of time]
Examination in chief ends at 12.31pm.
Cross Examination by Defence
Q1: Refer to Notice under s. 32, when did you first meet Kevin?
A: April 2007.
Q2: When was Notice dated?
A: August 2007.
Q3: What materials did you give to Kevin when issuing this notice?
A: 1) MSC’s statement ; 2) Shuttle Aid’s accounts; 3) Cheque butts of BC; 4) a few documents of BC on Danga Bay and the purchase of the 2 office units at Megan Phileo Avenue. That is what I remember. The rest I cannot remember, I am not sure …
Dato K: You are the I.O. You know you are testifying today, you should know….
Q4: Do you agree that you did not give any cheque of MSC or from Shuttle Aid to Kevin?
A: No, I did not give.
Q5: Did you give to Kevin any cheque butts of Shuttle Aid to Kevin?
A: No, I did not.
Q6: So, you agree that you had just relied on the statement of MSC and the bank account statement before issuing the notices. These were the important documents that you relied on?
A: Yes.
Q7: Did you do any company search on Shuttle Aid?
A: No.
Q8: Kevin told the court that you made a search. Does that mean that Kevin is not telling the truth?
A: …. (no answer)
DPP: Objection. This witness did not have to opportunity to hear what Kevin said. So I.O. Saiful can’t be asked this question.
Dato K: I am telling him what Kevin said!
Judge: Okay Dato, please proceed.
Dato K: It is either Kevin is not telling the truth or you are not telling the truth.
Saiful: Please say the question again.
Q9: Kevin said that you did a search. Now you say you didn’t do a search. Who is lying?
A: I don’t know what Kevin said. Maybe he is lying, maybe …..
Q10: Okay, if that is what he said, then who is telling the truth?
A: I also can’t say if he is telling the truth, I can’t say that. But I can say I am not lying….
DPP: Witness has answered, he can’t say, so don’t harass the witness unless you can show the page in the Notes of Proceedings in which Kevin said that!
Dato K: You better sit down when I am standing and asking questions, and don’t disturb me in my cross!
[Dato K then referred DPP and PW7 to Notes of Evidence on Kevin’s testimony about the company search].
Q11: Alright, now refer to the Notes where Kevin said you, the I.O. did the company search. Now, are you satisfied that he pointed to you? Okay, you tell me who is telling the truth, you or Kevin?
Saiful: (nervous and chuckles) Can I explain….
Dato K: This is a very serious matter, don’t you laugh in court !
DPP: Objection!
Judge: Okay, please proceed
Dato K: I put it to you that one of you is lying!
Q12: Kevin said that he saw cheques and cheques butts from Shuttle Aid, was it from you as I.O.?
A: Not from me. I didn’t give him any of those from Shuttle Aid. Nothing from Shuttle Aid.
Dato K: So Kevin is again lying by pointing at you as I.O.?
A: [made faces but gave no answer]
Q13: Do you know who is the shareholder of Shuttle Aid?
A: MSC’s son.
Q14: Did you do a search to know this? Do you know as a fact who is the director of Shuttle Aid?
DPP: (interjects) I.O. already said it is MSC’s son who is the shareholder.
Q15: You didn’t do a search, so you didn’t know his son was the shareholder?
A: (Grimaced, made faces but no answer)…….
Q16: Can you confirm MSC’s name is not at all in the company Shuttle Aid?
A: Yes, MSC’s name is not in the company
Q17: And who is the signatory of Shuttle Aid’s cheques?
A: I don’t know, I also did not investigate that ……
Q18: You did not investigate and yet you agreed to whatever MSC says?
A: Yes, I do believe MSC’s statement
Q19: Do you agree it is very important to retrieve from the bank, who issued the cheque and who cashed the cheque?
A: Yes, it is important.
Q20: Yet, you did not do that?
A: I did not.
Q21: Do you agree if you had retrieved the cheque of Shuttle Aid, you could confirm what MSC had said, whether it is true that he had paid RM25k to DRY?
A: Yes, if I had done that, may be I could know. But I did not do that so I did not know….
Q22: Now, tell this court, as an I.O., you must have recorded statements from many people. Can you give the names of the people whom you recorded statements from?
A: Actually, before notice was issued, no statement was recorded from any witness…..
Dato K: What! What is wrong with you people? So cavalier!
[Gallery excited. Someone exclaimed “God, this is unbelievable! RD shook his head. RD’s wife seen touching his shoulders through the dock balustrades. Judge looked at PW7 and DPP with a frown]
Q23: After notice was issued, who did you record the statements from? Can you remember? Please give all their names?
DPP: Its late and near lunch time!
[Time: 12.50pm]
Dato K: Okay, you can now go for lunch break and tell us after that. Have a good lunch.
Judge: We will continue at 2.15pm.
Resume at 2.40pm
Q24: Do you now have the names of the people whom you recorded statements from?
A: I have reviewed file during lunchtime, actually there were statements from people before Notice was issued.
Q25: Oh? So now after lunch, you are changing your answer. It’s okay, who?
A: These names were in different IPs. I don’t have them here as they are in DRY’s case.
Q26: If before notice, whose statement was taken?
A: Before statement, I have statements of MSC, Simon and Allan.
Q27: You told the court that MSC is credible, because he gave a statement under s.22 ACA Act
A: Yes, true.
Q28: According to you before MSC gave his statement he was cautioned to tell the truth. On this basis you believed he was telling the truth?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q29: Did you record MSC’s statement?
A: No, I did not. It was not me.
Q30: Were you present when MSC’s statement was recorded?
A: No, I was not myself present at that time.
Q30: Who was the recording officer of MSC’s statement?
A: Penolong Kanan Penguasa Zacharias Khoo.
Q31: Do you agree that because you did not record MSC’s statement, would you know if Zacharias Khoo gave the caution under s.23 ACA? You would not know?
A: (nods head and slowly) …. Yes.
Q32: Would you say you are an experienced officer? Can you say that?
A: Yes, I have 6 years experience.
Q33: Do you agree with me, as an I.O., at the end of the statement the recording officer must ask witness if the statement is true or not?
A: Yes, he must ask.
Q34: Now, before that, must Recording Officer read back the statement to the witness of what he had stated in the statement?
A: Yes.
Q35: In this case, you would not know whether the statement was read back? Whether the he was asked if the statement was true or not?
A: I would know.
Dato K: Look my question was …
DPP: Witness has answered.
Dato K: Please don’t disturb my cross. Why is DPP always disrupting …
Q36: Do you know if Zacharias Khoo read back the statement to MSC?
A: I know. I was informed.
Q37: By whom?
A: By Zacharias Khoo.
Q38: But you did not take a statement from Zacharias Khoo?
A: No, I did not.
Dato K: This is what you would be expected to do but you did not.
Q39: You are being very difficult. Now let me ask you this: you were not in the room during the recording; you did not record MSC’s statement; you did not record Zacharias’ statement; do you agree you would not know if caution was given, you would not know if statement was read back to MSC. My question is, you would not know and can’t tell if MSC was telling the truth?
A: I do not agree. I was informed by Zacharias Khoo and it was in the MSC’s statement.
Dato K: You are being very difficult by avoiding a straight answer, never mind.
Q40: But from your own personal knowledge, you would not know right?
A: Yes, I would not know from personal knowledge.
Q41: Therefore you agree there was no basis to say MSC is credible?
A: That I do not agree.
Q42: MSC’s statement was recorded on 7 March 2007.
A: Yes.
Q43: MSC alleged he gave money to DRY and several other police officers in 1999-2002.
A: It started from 1999, but until 2000 or 2002 something.
Q44: So if it was in 1999, that means MSC gave a statement 7 years after he gave the corruption to several police officers?
A: True…..
Q45: If payment ended in 2002, that means MSC made a report 5 years after the incident of payment?
A: Yes.
Q46: Do you agree he made report rather late?
A: Yes.
Q47: Yet, you still call him credible?
A: Yes, he is credible.
Dato K: You are amazing, you say its credible, very smart…..
Q48: To your recollection, in the statement by MSC, he said he gave bribes to several police officers. Who are they?
A: I cannot remember. I can only remember DRY.
Q49: Let me help you refresh your memory. MSC said he gave RM8k – RM10k to several police officers in Perak, do you remember that?
A: I can’t remember.
Q50: Do you remember the name Dato’ Amiruddin, CPO Perak?
A: I cannot remember.
Dato K: Okay, Let me refresh your memory, see IDD9.
[PW7 looks at IDD9, which is MSC’s statement]
Dato K : Now tell the court if MSC mentioned the name of the Perak Officers that he gave money to.
A: Yes, MSC gave money to Dato Amiruddin CPO; to MP; to SAC II Wan Muhamad; and to Zuber Sharif.
Q51: This statement was in your custody?
A: Yes.
Q52: Yet you can’t remember?
A: [no answer].
Q52: Is there in the statement that he gave corruption to several police officers via other police officers as well?
A: Yes, there is mention like that.
Q53: Do you agree that until now not one of those officers who were said to have received corruption from MSC have been charged for corruption?
A: To my knowledge, no.
Q54: To charge these officers, you must rely on the evidence on MSC, correct?
A: Yes.
Q55: Since none have been charged, do you still consider MSC a credible witness?
A: (Nods slowly) Yes.
Dato K: What is wrong with you? Why can’t you give a straight answer! If A-G believed MSC’s statement, all these officers would have been charged too. The fact that A-G did not charge these officers means A-G did not believe the statement?
A: I don’t know.
Q56: Do you agree this is selective prosecution?
DPP: Objection. No such thing, no such thing….
Dato K: Why is DPP getting excited? Isn’t it true MSC has given all their names and how much they received? So why don’t charge them?
[Heated exchange DPP/Dato K]
Judge: (waves his hand to proceed)
Dato K: I m just showing that despite relying on MSC’s statement in which he said he gave money to these officers in high position, but they are not charged. For these officers, A-G must have thrown MSC’s statement out of the window.
Judge: Okay Dato, put in submissions.
Q57: I put it to you there was selective prosecution by A-G?
A: I don’t agree.
Q59: Did you brief Kevin about the relationship between RD and DRY?
A: Yes.
Q60: And this briefing was on your information?
A: Yes.
Q61: Not from any statements?
A: Yes.
Q62: Do you confirm that you did not record any statement from DRY or RD before sending the notice?
A: Yes.
Q63: Do you agree with me that MSC’s statement was under s. 22?
A: True.
Q64: Do you know s. 22? You should know it by heart or do you want to refresh your memory?
A: No need, I know it well.
Q65: Who asked MSC to come to ACA HQ to give a statement?
A: (smiled) I don’t know.
Q66: As an I.O., you did not know who ordered MSC to come give a statement?
A: I do not know.
DPP: Objection, he cannot be asked like that.
Dato K: That’s why I asked if he wants to see s. 22, but he says no need. S. 22 says that there must be order for a person to come and give a statement. I asked him who gave the order, but he doesn’t know. He is the I.O., if he doesn’t know, who would know? Hantu kah?
Q67: Could it be the present IGP who ordered him?
A: I don’t know.
Q68: Because the order would have to be made for him to come give a statement, therefore he did not come voluntarily?
A: I don’t know.
Dato K: You are trying to be smart, or are you shielding any other police officers by your answer?
DPP: Objection…..
Dato K: When I’m standing, you wait for me to get my answer. Do you know etiquette? Why are you standing up whilst I’m talking?
DPP: [uttered something incoherent]
Q69: Do you know whether a notice or order was sent to him to MSC?
A: I don’t know.
Q70: Was any written notice under s. 22(1) given to MSC to give a statement under oath or affirmation?
A: I don’t know.
Q71: Did you at any time before notice was issued, ordered RD or DRY to produce tax returns, bank accounts, financial accounts?
A: Which Notice?
Dato K: Notice s. 32.
A: No.
Q72: Are you aware that you have the powers under the said s. 22 of the Act to get all that?
A: I don’t know.
Q73: Do you know RD is a lawyer, before the notice was sent?
A: I don’t know.
Q74: Suddenly you don’t know many things. Now remember carefully otherwise DPP will jump up and say things against me. Do you know before sending the notice that RD was a lawyer?
A: Yes I know.
Dato K: Just now you say tak tahu, now you say tahu…… I want to be fair to you, its okay you can change your answers (chuckled).
Q75: You said you had information that RD was DRY’s lawyer, before the notice was sent out, right?
A: Yes.
Q76: Do you know that a lawyer have several privilege on certain confidential information?
A: Yes.
Q77: Do you know that you can make an application to a High Court Judge to get that privileged information?
A: Yes.
Dato K: Give him the Act (PW7 stared long at pages in the ACA Act).
Dato K: Are you still reading? I thought you already read and know when you come to court.
Q78: You said you knew RD is a lawyer. If you wanted any privilege information, you must apply to court. If you did not have that application to court, he need not disclose the information to you. Do you agree?
A: I do not agree.
Q79: You could have gone under s. 27?
A: No need also.
Dato K: Very good!
Q80: Did Kevin make any application to the High Court to get that information?
A: No.
Q81: Now, in s. 31, you could get all of RD’s bank account?
A: Yes, I could.
Q82: Did you do all that to obtain this information before issuing the Notice?
A: No, I did not.
Q83: Do you confirm that other than the charge in this court, RD has not been charged for any other offence under the ACA?
A: Yes.
Q84: I say to you that you have not exhausted, for some ulterior motive, you have not exhausted your powers under the Act.
A: I don’t understand.
Dato K: Why are you embarrassed to answer?
A: I am afraid to answer.
Q85: I say to you that you have not used all the powers under s. 22-31 before issuing the notice under s. 32?
A: I don’t agree.
Q86: You said that RD is a potential witness who can assist in the investigation?
A: Yes.
Q87: Do you agree RD is not person being investigated?
A: Yes.
Q88: Who was investigated?
A: DRY.
Q89: At that time when you investigated DRY, you thought RD was a potential witness?
A: Yes.
Q90: Even though he was a potential witness who can assist ACA, you did not take his statement under s. 22 ACA?
A: I did not.
Q91: Is this directions from above?
A: (smiles slyly) Is this a question?
Q92: You did not record RD’s statement although he is a witness who can assist you. Was this directions from above?
A: I don’t agree.
Dato K: What is it that you don’t agree with?
Q93: You are a law graduate, so you know the law, you know your powers?
A: Yes.
Q94: Did you make a report on 8 October 2007
A: Yes.
Q95: When you made this report, did you receive a Statement under Oath from RD?
A: Yes, I did.
Q96: See D4. This Statement should be in your custody. Did you receive this from RD?
A: I did not receive it directly.
Q97: Received from superior officer?
A: sorry I can’t hear.
Q98: Did you get this from Nordin Hassan?
A: (Smiled) No!
Q99: When you received it from Kevin, you still did not take a statement from RD to see how he can assist you all in the investigation?
A: No, I did not.
Q100: You could have taken a statement, if you wanted to?
A: Yes, I can.
Q101: In fact, do you agree that Kevin did not give an order to record a statement from RD?
A: Yes, true.
DPP: Objection…. (trial disrupted)
Stand down at 3.20pm. Resume at 3.37pm.
Q101: When was RD arrested?
A: To my recollection on 11 October 2007.
Q102: Why was he arrested?
A: For not complying with s. 32 Notice.
Q103: That is in your opinion?
A: Yes.
Q104: In the Charge it is not stated he is holding for DRY?
A: Yes.
Q105: Who gave instructions to arrest RD?
A: I don’t know.
Dato K: Excuse me, you are the I.O. in this case. You are now telling me and this Honourable Court that you don’t know who gave you orders to arrest RD?
A: I don’t know.
Q106: Can a junior officer tell you to arrest?
A: No.
Q107: It has to be a senior officer?
A: Yes.
Q108: Do you know that on the 11th morning, a few officers came to see RD and RD told them him it is the end of month of Ramadan and he was on leave; that after Ramadan, he will come to the ACA office?
A: Yes.
Q109: That information was related to you/officers superior to you?
A: Maybe.
Q110: Although RD said that after Raya he will come to assist you , a second set of officers came to arrest him. Do you know that?
A: Yes.
Q111: Who were they?
A: I cannot know all. Arrest was made by Mohan. The rest I am not sure.
Q112: You know he was forcefully arrested despite him giving assurances that he would give his assistance to the ACA after Raya?
A: I don’t know.
Q113: Are you aware that he was forcefully arrested and handcuffed until he was injured?
A: I don’t know.
Q114: Look at these pictures. Why do you do this to him until bleeding? Was it necessary?
A: (No answer) …..
Q115: As an I.O., do you have information that he was going to abscond from the country?
A: No.
Q116: Why the need to arrest him? What was the haste to arrest him?
A: I don’t know.
Q117: MSC’s statement was 5 years late and you believed this criminal as a witness, why can’t you give RD 2-3 days to come if you want him to assist?
A: I don’t know.
Dato K: All these are instructions from the top?
A: Maybe.
Dato K: I want the pictures to be marked.
DPP: Objection ……
Judge: Okay, marked as IDD 32.
Q118: Do you know that RD had written a letter challenging that Notice was invalid?
A: I don’t know.
Dato K: Are you really the I.O. for this case? You seem to not know so many things
Q119: In the report you lodged, why did you not state that RD had challenged the validity of the Notice?
A: Not necessary.
Q120: In your IP, did you identify RD as an associate? Before notice was issued, did you tell Kevin that RD was a witness or an associate?
A: Only as a witness.
Q121: Do you know why Kevin regarded RD as an associate to DRY?
A: I do not know.
Dato K: Very good. He does not know why Kevin deemed RD as an associate.
Q122: So do you agree that it was Kevin on his own that identified RD as an associate?
A: Yes, based on information I provided.
Q123: You could have found out the position of RD with DRY, if you had recorded the statement of RD?
A: Not necessary.
Q124: Their relationship that you briefed Kevin about: as syariah lawyer, university mates, all based on your information? But no one came and told you?
A: Yes.
Q125: Do you know by law, you have to record it in your diary?
A: Not necessary, not under MACC law.
Q126: So you did not record statements from the people who told you all these?
A: No.
Q127: Did you go to their university to find out whether they were in the same class?
A: No.
Q128: Did you do a file search at the syariah court to see the case number, etc., that RD did for DRY?
A: No.
Q129: So all these are hearsay evidence?
A: Information received.
Q130: Did you tell Kevin Morais of RD’s role in BC?
A: Yes.
Q131: Where did you get this information?
A: Information received from Informer.
Q132: Did you record a statement from the Informer?
A: No.
Dato K: Hmm… very cavalier attitude you have taken as the I.O.!.
Q133: What was the information you briefed Kevin on his role in BC? Were you aware he was not in the transaction between BC and Phileo?
A: I just based on document.
Q134: Show the Court these documents.
A: Loan agreement also?
Q135: Now look at document ID18, where is RD’s name?
A: Not there, but there is Allen & Gledhill.
Q136: Do you know how many lawyers in Allen & Gledhill?
A: Not exactly.
Q137: Did you go to A&G and ask who was the Partner who did the transaction?
A: No.
Q138: You just based on information and did not record any statement from this so-called Informer?
A: No I did not.
Q139: If you had recorded RD’s statement you would know the relationship?
A: Not necessary.
Q140: Under s. 22, MSC must tell the truth, RD also must tell the truth. How can there be different rule for MSC, a criminal, and a different rule for RD, a respected lawyer?
A: I don’t know.
Q141: Look at the SPA, which is document marked ID18. Who made it?
A: Nordin Adenan.
Q142: Did you take a statement from Adenan?
A: Not before, but after the notice.
Q143: Do you know that the lawyer who represented BC in Danga Bay is Yap & Yong?
A: I cannot remember.
Q144: Okay. Look at document D23. Can you see that the solicitors are Messrs Yap & Yong. Did you take a statement from them?
A: I did not. I did not take from anyone ….
Q145: see D15. Who made this report?
A: Sazali, an ACA officer. It’s a cover report. I also did not record any statement from him.
Q146: In this report, did not at all mention RD’s or DRY’s name?
A: Yes, no mention of their names.
Q147: You agree that investigation was based on MSC’s statement and statement D9?
A: Yes.
Q148: Did MSC make any report to ACA?
A: I don’t know.
Q149: I say to you MSC never made any report to ACA?
A: Maybe, I don’t know.
Dato K: If PW7 is the I.O. of this case, he is very selective with his memory. When the DPP asked, he went on fluently like a parrot. Here, he is being a selective with what his memory can recall.
Q150: If he made a report to ACA that Police received corruption, is that important?
A: His report is not important, only his information.
Q151: Look at P3, where did you get this information?
A: I don’t know.
Q152: ACA complainant says MSC gave bribes to several police officers and named them. Is DRY’s name and RD’s name in that report?
A: No.
Q153: If the information says police received bribes, he would give the names?
DPP: (shakes his head)
Dato K: Stop shaking your head to indicate the answer to witness. Your Honour, the DPP is guiding this witness by his gestures. It is so clear….
Judge : Go on Dato.
Dato K: It is common sense. As a responsible officer, you should take down the names of the officers?
A: I don’t know how to answer.
Q154: That Danga Bay Agreement, when did you receive it?
A: It was given by Informer.
Q155: And would will say you did not record a statement from this Informer?
A: Yes, I did not.
Q156: I put it to you; you are lying. You are not prepared to reveal the Informer!
A: I don’t agree.
Q157: All these documents were after you issued the notice!
A: Yes.
Dato K: (startled) Sorry, did you say – yes all were after the Notice was issued?
A: I don’t know, I can’t remember, I don’t understand.
Q158: You mean the copy of the agreement, you don’t want to disclose it?
A: I showed it to Kevin.
Q159: Where is the document? Tell the court why you can’t show you actually have it?
A: It’s an information given by Informer.
Q160: I did not ask you for the name of the Informer. I asked where is that document if it actually existed?
A: I can’t show it, it is secret under s. 53 ACA.
Q161: I put to you, that you and Kevin fabricated stories and fictitious documents as a conspiracy to be basis to issue the notice. That all these were obtained after you had issued the notice.
A: I don’t agree.
Q162: I suggest to you these documents were sent to us by the DPP under s. 51A, the documents between Phileo and BC and Danga Bay and Bonus circle.
A: Agree.
Q163: So these documents were actually given by DRY in his Statement under Oath under s. 32 and you now say you got it from Informer!
A: No.
Q164: I put it to you; there was no document from any Informer and there was no Informer. You fix this up!
A: No.
Q165: I put it to you; there is a conspiracy between MACC and PDRM to use MSC to fix up DRY and then RD!
A: No.
Q166: Do you know that MSC was detained under the E.O.?
A: Yes.
Q167: Do you know that MSC was released after he gave his statement to D9 to fix DRY?
A: I don’t know.
Q168: In DRY’s trial, was MSC offered as a witness?
A: I cannot remember.
Q169: You agree that MSC is involved in illegal activities, gambling, prostitution and even murder?
A: Agree.
Dato K: And you believe this sort of a criminal! What more can I say about MACC!
DPP: Objections!!!!
Judge: Okay, okay. We continue another day. Next date is 28th June 2010.
