KUALA LUMPUR: Despite admitting to receiving bribes totalling RM5.9mil in the MEX II highway scandal, four men walked away with only a maximum RM100,000 fine each, the maximum allowed under the law.
Businessman Datuk Lim Kim Hai, 50; farmer Ang Teck Ann, 52; storekeeper Lee Keng Long, 37; and freelance consultant Chan Chee Keong, 67; pleaded guilty to their charges separately before Sessions judges Rosli Ahmad and Suzana Hussin here yesterday.
Each of them will have to serve prison time between three and 10 months if they fail to pay the fine.
It is understood that all of them paid the fine.
Before judge Rosli, Lim pleaded guilty to being given a RM3.5mil bribe by former MEX II Sdn Bhd director Datuk Yap Wee Leong as an inducement to engage three sub-contractor companies, namely Villas Hub Sdn Bhd, Jade Centennial Sdn Bhd and Bidang Bakat Sdn Bhd, for Golden Base Construction Sdn Bhd.
Ang admitted to being given a RM500,000 bribe as an inducement to be the middleman between Lim and another individual to engage the three sub-contractor companies.
Both men did not report the inducement to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or the nearest police and therefore had violated Section 16(b)(A) of the MACC Act 2009.
The offences were committed at KH LIM Corporate Consultancy Sdn Bhd, Mid Valley City, between June 2017 and June 2018.
The charges were framed under Section 25(1) of the MACC Act 2009, which carries a maximum RM100,000 fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both, upon conviction.
At judge Suzana’s court, Chan pleaded guilty to being given RM1.4mil from Lim as inducement for being a middleman to engage the three sub-contractors for Golden Base.
For Lee, he pleaded guilty to being given RM500,000 by Lim as an inducement to loan his companies, Villas Hub, Jade Centennial and Bidang Bakat, for Lim to use as sub-contractors to Golden Base.
The offences took place at the same location and time.
In the proceedings, the prosecution urged the court to impose a just sentence for the accused persons as a lesson and did not object if the court imposed a fine at the maximum level.
The prosecution also asked that the assets involved in the case, such as cash, be forfeited to the government. This application was allowed by the courts.
The defence, in mitigation, asked for a lenient sentence, as the accused had cooperated with the authorities and were remorseful of their actions.
