Tong Kooi Ong needs to prove his innocence

Now Tong denies he paid Justo US$2 million to buy the stolen data. But that is merely a denial and a denial is not good enough. Tong has to prove he did not pay Justo the US$2 million. He must produce the evidence and show his personal bank account statements to prove that he did not pay Justo any money.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

About 15 years ago Anwar Ibrahim was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to nine years jail because, according to the judge, he had failed to prove his innocence. The Federal Court later overturned that conviction on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt but in the same breath the judge said he still believes that Anwar is guilty.

This sounded like the court was reprimanding the prosecution for failing to do a better job.

In the second sodomy trial, Anwar was again found guilty and sentenced to five years jail. Basically, Anwar had failed to convince the court that he was innocent so he must therefore be presumed to be guilty.

First of all, Anwar refused to take the stand to testify. He merely made a speech (or ceramah) from the dock. His speech, however, which was inadmissible as evidence, focused on ‘political conspiracy’ rather than address the points of the case against him.

The second damaging part of his defence was that he claimed he was not at the scene of the crime at that time and date and that he had at least a dozen witnesses who could support his alibi. However, once it was revealed that a video from a CCTV could prove he was at the scene of the crime at that time and date, he dropped his alibi defence and the witnesses were not called to court to testify.

Say what you like, Anwar was found guilty because he could not prove his innocence. That is the long and short of it all. In fact, the aborted alibi defence could have got him off.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has been accused of stealing money. If Najib did not steal any money then he must prove this, say his critics. Some of this money he was supposed to have stolen, RM2.6 billion to be exact, found its way into his personal bank account, they further allege.

Najib denies this and says he did not steal any money. He also says the RM2.6 billion was not stolen from 1MDB but was, in fact, a political donation. Well, then Najib has to prove it, say his accusers. He must show the evidence and reveal details of his bank account statements to prove that he is innocent. And until and unless Najib does that then he must be presumed to be guilty.

Yes, once an allegation has been made against you the onus is on you to prove that the allegation is false. You will be presumed to be guilty until and unless you can prove you are innocent.

Xavier Andre Justo claims that he stole some data from his previous employer and sold it to Tong Kooi Ong for US$2 million. However, while Tong does not deny receiving the stolen data from Justo, he denies paying the US$2 million. Tong says he cheated Justo and did not pay him the money.

Anwar also claims he did not sodomise his employee. But he was still sent to jail in spite of his denial (as was Khir Toyo yesterday in spite of screaming that he is innocent). Najib also claims he did not steal any money. But a mere denial is not good enough. Najib has to prove he did not steal any money and until and unless he does that then he is presumed guilty.

Now Tong denies he paid Justo US$2 million to buy the stolen data. But that is merely a denial and a denial is not good enough. Tong has to prove he did not pay Justo the US$2 million. He must produce the evidence and show his personal bank account statements to prove he did not pay Justo any money.

Justo claims the money was paid to the broker or brokers. Justo’s broker is Clare Rewcastle-Brown while Tong’s broker is Tony Pua. Tony was supposed to collect the money from Tong and then hand it to Clare who would then pay Justo US$250,000 a month for eight months.

However, according to Justo, he was arrested just before the first instalment could be paid. So this would mean the US$2 million is either still with Tony or is in Clare’s hands.

Justo says the money was paid. Tong says it was not paid. But Tong cannot prove it was not paid. So until and unless Tong can prove it was not paid then we must assume it was paid. Since we are assuming that the money was paid then either Tony or Clare has the money. And if both Tony and Clare insist they are not holding the money then they, too, must prove this.

If Tong can prove he did not pay the money then Tony and Clare are off the hook. But if Tong were not able to prove he did not pay the money then Tony and Clare would have to prove they did not receive the money. They would have to produce the evidence and show their personal bank accounts to prove that the US$2 million never flowed into their bank account.

Yes, it is a very dangerous game they play that an allegation is proof of guilt and until and unless you can prove your innocence then you are presumed guilty of the allegation.