PUTRAJAYA (April 20): The prosecution today told the Court of Appeal that former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s claim that his only responsibility towards his AmBank accounts was to spend money by issuing cheques is absurd.
Ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram told the three-member appellate bench hearing Najib’s appeal against his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd graft trial that this was revealed when he cross-examined the ex-prime minister at the High Court.
He continued to read the court transcript of the cross-examination between himself and Najib during the trial at the High Court.
Sithambaram: Ok. So it is your case, Datuk Seri, that as an account holder, you are not responsible for the credits into your account, but only responsible for spending the money? That’s your case.
Najib: Yes.
During the defence’s submission on April 7, defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh argued that Najib did not know where the monies in his personal account came from.
Sithambaram today reiterated that Najib had previously testified that he was not notified of his personal account balance and did not know where the funds in his personal accounts originated from.
He submitted that there is no reason for the mandate holders in charge of Najib’s accounts to conceal the balance of said accounts.
Those who had managed Najib’s personal accounts were former SRC chief executive officer Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, his late former principal private secretary Datuk Azlin Alias, and fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.
However, only Nik Faisal was the mandate holder officially allowed by the bank to oversee Najib’s accounts.
It was previously reported that Najib claimed that he did not know how much balance he had in his personal accounts and instead used a “sense” to gauge it whenever he had to write a cheque.
The prosecutor added that it was incredibly convenient that the former premier could “sense” the balance in his account and attributed the former premier’s “sense” to his adamant refusal to answer certain questions.
“The remarkable ability of the appellant (Najib) to ‘sense’ the balance in his accounts is highly incredible.
“It also explains why the appellant found it difficult to answer questions pertaining to why Datuk Azlin Alias, and Jho Low would keep the source of the funds deposited into his account a secret,” said Sithambaram.
The prosecutor said they were instructed with ensuring Najib’s personal accounts had sufficient funds so that cheques would be cleared, and this included cash deposits and that the former premier knew of where the funds in his accounts came from.
“The prosecution reiterates that the appellant (Najib) had full knowledge of the source of the funds in his accounts.
“The appellant had made it the duty of Datuk Azlin Alias, Nik Faisal and Jho Low to make sure funds were readily available in his accounts at all times.
“The primary concern of the appellant was only to utilise the money and he did not want to know where the money was sourced from,” said Sithambaram.
Najib’s counsel Harvinderjit also previously claimed that besides not knowing where the monies had come from, Najib was also a victim of Jho Low, who had benefited from him without his knowledge.
Sithambaram said he instantly found this claim suspicious as Najib did not lose any money but instead gained RM42 million from being “used”, which the defence claimed was bait to continue their relationship.
“The appellant (Najib) claimed to be a victim of manipulation by gaining funds [instead of losing them] through Jho Low’s actions. The appellant also said that Jho Low had made a lot of money from his involvement in Terengganu Investment Authority, 1Malaysia Development Bhd, and SRC and that the reason Jho Low was ensuring funds were available was so that Jho Low’s relationship with the former premier would not be affected and thereby arousing the suspicion of the appellant," he added.
High Court judge Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali in his ground of judgements last year called the claims seriously flawed, said Sithambaram.
“The lack of any complaint from the appellant at the material time of the alleged unauthorised transactions, the involvement of the appellant’s mandate holder Nik Faisal, the appellant’s immediate utilisation of the RM42 million, [and] the close relationship between Jho Low and the appellant which lacks any formal appointment with the bank (AmBank), and also where the appellant does not seem to be concerned when continuously dealing with Jho Low... Jho Low would not dare to deceive the appellant who was the prime minister and thereby expose Jho Low’s good relationship with him,” said Sithambaram in support of the judge’s findings.
The prosecution will continue their submission tomorrow.