Muhyiddin applies to transfer abuse of position, money laundering case to High Court
His lawyer, Tang Jia Wearn, informed Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi that the hearing of the matter had been set for June 16 before High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin and requested the Sessions Court to set the date for case management to monitor the status of the application.
The case was mentioned today, with deputy public prosecutors Noralis Mat and Wan Nur Iman Wan Ahmad Afzal in attendance.
Earlier, Noralis informed the court that the prosecution had submitted the list of witnesses for the money laundering charge and documents related to the case today to the defence, and this was confirmed by Tang.
The court then set July 11 for case management, with Muhyiddin exempted from attending the proceeding.
In the application filed last April 4, Muhyiddin said there were complex legal issues and questions of unusual difficulty that were expected to arise, particularly regarding the constitutionality of several provisions in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009.
According to the Bersatu president, the case in question was of public interest that had attracted the attention of the general public and received extensive media coverage at home and abroad, and it would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution if the application was allowed.
On April 27, 2023, Muhyiddin had filed an application to transfer the case from the Sessions Court to the High Court, but on July 10 of the same year, he withdrew the application.
Muhyiddin, 77, as the Prime Minister (at the time) and Bersatu president, was charged with four counts of using his position to obtain bribes totalling RM232.5 million in connection with the Jana Wibawa Project from three companies, namely Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd, as well as Datuk Azman Yusoff, for the party.
He was charged with committing the offence at the Prime Minister's Office, Bangunan Perdana Putra, the Federal Government Administration Centre in Putrajaya between March 1, 2020 and August 20, 2021.
The Pagoh member of Parliament also faces three charges of receiving proceeds from illegal activities totalling RM200 million from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, which were deposited into Bersatu's Ambank and CIMB Bank accounts.
The offence was allegedly committed at separate locations at AmBank, Amcorp Mall branch, Petaling Jaya on Jan 7, 2022 and CIMB Bank, Menara KL Branch, Jalan Stesen Sentral, here between February 25 and July 16, 2021 and February 8 and July 8, 2022.
– BERNAMA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Witness denies police beat suspects, forced confession in Palestinian kidnapping case
KUALA LUMPUR: A police officer denied in the High Court here today that two suspects in a Palestinian man's kidnapping case were severely beaten by police, resulting in serious injuries such as a torn tongue during their arrest at a chalet in Hulu Langat three years ago. ASP Mohamad Jazlan Sharif, 42, currently attached to the Intelligence and Operations Division of the Dang Wangi police headquarters Criminal Investigation Department, testified under cross-examination by defence lawyer Norma Goh Kim Lian. The eight accused in the case are Tengku Arif Bongsu Tengku Hamid, 44; Mohamad Naziree Mustapha, 44; Faizull Hardey Mohd Isa, 45; Muhammad Iqmal Abdul Rahis, 30; Mohd Zaidi Mohd Zain, 59; Nidarahayu Zainal, 39; Raibafie Amdan, 44; and Edy Ko'im Said, 45. Goh: I state to you that during the time in room 110, the fifth and sixth accused, Mohamad Naziree and Faizull Hardey, were severely beaten by your team, sustaining serious injuries, including a torn tongue and bodily injuries. They were beaten and forced to confess involvement in the kidnapping, which they denied. Do you agree? Mohamad Jazlan: I do not agree. Goh: Do you agree that when the fourth (Tengku Arif Bongsu), fifth (Mohamad Naziree), and sixth (Faizull Hardey) accused were arrested in room 110, they did not attempt to flee? Mohamad Jazlan: Yes, that is correct. Mohamad Jazlan, the lead officer in the raid, testified that the arrests were made for investigative purposes. "Further investigation involves a police report filed by a Palestinian man, and to my knowledge, there was no physical assault involved," the witness told deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sabri Othman. The trial before Judge K. Muniandy will resume on Oct 15. All eight accused are jointly accused of abducting a 31-year-old victim at the same time and place to obtain confidential information on creating and disabling software used to hack mobile phones. They were charged under Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, which carries between 30 and 40 years' imprisonment and caning upon conviction. Meanwhile, Tengku Arif Bongsu, along with married couple Nidarahayu and Raibafie, face an additional 19 charges involving over RM250,000 under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. – Bernama
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Apex court sets Nov 6 to hear armed forces retirees' leave to appeal on pension case
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has set Nov 6 to hear an application by 50 retired armed forces personnel seeking leave to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling on pension adjustments. Lawyer Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla, representing the retirees, said the date was fixed by Federal Court deputy registrar Husna Dzulkifly during a case management session that began on Aug 4 and concluded today via e-Review. "The hearing will be conducted virtually via Zoom," he said, adding that a final case management is scheduled for Oct 25 to update the court on the status of cause papers and written submissions. On June 4 this year, a three-judge Court of Appeal panel overturned the High Court's ruling that entitled armed forces retirees who left service before Jan 1, 2013, to pension adjustments matching those granted to retirees after that date. The appellate bench had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, namely, the government, Prime Minister, Senior Defence Minister and Armed Forces Council. The Court of Appeal ruled that the armed forces retirees failed to prove that the respondents had breached the Federal Constitution. Subsequently, the retirees filed an application on July 3 seeking leave to appeal to the Federal Court. In their application, they sought the determination of two questions of law related to the pension adjustment issue. Fifty army personnel of various ranks, including majors, lieutenants, staff sergeants, and privates, filed an originating summons in the High Court on Nov 17, 2022. They sought a declaration that the government violated the Federal Constitution and Section 187 of the Malaysian Armed Forces Act 1972 by failing to implement new pension adjustments for retirees who left service before Jan 1, 2013. The retirees contended that the government's failure created a significant pension gap between those who retired before and after that date. — Bernama
Borneo Post
4 hours ago
- Borneo Post
Sabah's 40% revenue claim: High Court decision Oct 3
Photo for illustration purposes only. – Photo from KOTA KINABALU (Aug 12): A High Court here fixed October 3 to deliver its verdict of a judicial review brought by Sabah Law Society (SLS) to get declaration on 40 percent net revenue grant for Sabah which allegedly had not been reviewed for 48 years since 1974. The decision date was set through virtual hearing via Zoom on Tuesday. On July 7, a full hearing for the substantive judicial review was heard before Justice Datuk Celestina Steul Galid. Three years ago, SLS was granted a leave to commence their judicial review by a High Court here which was on November 11, 2022. The federal government had appealed against the High Court's decision on May 16, 2024 which was dismissed on June 18, 2024, with no order as to costs. SLS had named the government of the federation of Malaysia and the state government of Sabah as the first and second respondents respectively in their judicial review. It sought from court a declaration that the failure of the first respondent to hold the second review in 1974 with the second respondent is a breach and contravention of its constitutional duty stipulated under Article 112D, Clauses (1), (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution. SLS also sought from court a declaration that 40 percent entitlement remains due and payable by the first respondent to the second respondent for each consecutive financial year for the period from the year 1974 to 2021. Apart from that, SLS further sought from court a declaration that the failure to pay the 40 percent entitlement by the first respondent to the second respondent for each consecutive financial year for the period from 1974 to 2021 is a breach of the fundamental right to property of the second respondent and ultimately of the people of Sabah as enshrined under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. Further, they sought an order of mandamus directed to the first respondent to hold another review with the second respondent under the provisions of Article 112D of the Federal Constitution to give effect to payment of the 40 percent entitlement under Article 112C read with subsection (1) of Section 2 of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution for each consecutive financial year for the period from 1974 to 2021 within 30 days and to reach a decision within 90 days from the date of this order. Lastly, SLS is also seeking an order that the first respondent pays the entitlement as determined under paragraph 3 (a) above to the second respondent or as constitutional damages for breach of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution or both. For this Zoom hearing, counsel Jeyan Marimuttu represented SLS, Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi and Sabah State Attorney General Datuk Brenndon Keith Soh acted for the federal and state governments respectively. SLS Immediate Past President Datuk Roger Chin emphasized the historic significance of the case, stating: 'This judicial review addresses Sabah's constitutional rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the Federal Constitution. It has attracted substantial public interest as it concerns long-standing issues of revenue entitlement and fiscal autonomy for Sabah.' He invited the public, civil society organizations, and media to attend the open-court proceedings, noting they 'reflect the principles of transparency and public accountability.'
