KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court was told that the Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) had never dealt with any company providing incomplete information with regards to loans, as what happened in the case of SRC International Sdn Bhd.
KWAP former assistant vice-president (Fixed Income Department) Amirul Imran Ahmat, 39, when re-examined by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Ishak Mohd Yusoff, said based on his experience with KWAP, no company had ever done so.
Ishak: So in this case, if a company does not provide additional details, their loan application will not be approved by KWAP?
Amirul Imran: Yes.
The 29th prosecution witness said this on the 15th day of trial of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is facing three counts of criminal breach of trust, one count of abusing his powers and three counts of money laundering involving SRC International funds totalling RM42mil.
Earlier, lawyer Harvinderjit Singh referred the witness to a letter received by SRC International after a KWAP investment panel had approved the second RM2bil facility, indicating that the government guarantee was a done deal.
To a question whether this indicated that the guarantee was already in place before the facility was approved, the witness disagreed.
Harvinderjit said to prove that SRC International violated the terms of the utilisation of the funds, which was earmarked for investment in natural resources and working capital, one needs to prove that the same funds granted and not any cash generated from the investment activities were used for other purposes.
Amirul Imran, who is currently vice-president (Fixed Income) at SME Bank, agreed with the lawyer, who then asked him whether it was possible to trace the origins of the money used.
Amirul Imran: It is not my job, but it can be done.
Harvinderjit: This can be done with a forensic accounting report?
Amirul Imran: Yes. Among others.
Bank Negara’s Financial Intelligence and Enforcement Department manager, Ahmad Farhan Sharifuddin, told the High Court that AmBank was fined for failing to report suspicious transactions in Najib’s accounts.
Cross-examined by Harvinderjit, the prosecution’s fourth witness said the offence committed by the bank was failing to report suspicious transactions in the former prime minister’s accounts, from the opening to the closing of the accounts.
Harvinderjit: Can you specify the particular transactions? It was before or after 2013?
Ahmad Farhan: I could not specify but it was from the opening and closing of the accounts, all transactions within that period.
When asked by lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah whether Najib would have been alerted if AmBank had reported suspicious activities in his accounts, the witness said the provision under the law did not permit warnings about suspicious transactions.
Muhammad Shafee: I suggest to you that if AmBank had reported the suspicious transactions, my client would have been alerted and the whole matter could have been avoided.
Ahmad Farhan: I have no idea because as far as I am concerned, I was only tasked with investigating the suspicious transactions.
When asked about the seizure of BlackBerry and Samsung phones during the raid conducted at the AmBank branch, the witness said he was not aware of the reason the phones were seized at the time and in fact, he did not even know that the items were seized.
“It was not necessary for my investigation,” he said, adding that he only handed over the phones along with an analysis report to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in August 2015, after the Forensics Department had extracted data from the phones.
Muhammad Shafee: Do you keep an investigation diary when you conduct the investigation?
The witness replied: “Yes, in the system.”
Hearing before High Court judge Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali continues. — Bernama