Are witness testimonies consistent in the SRC trial?

Question

Accepted Answer

Witness Testimonies Questioned in RM42 Million SRC Trial

The defence team for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has argued that witness testimonies in the RM42 million SRC International Sdn Bhd corruption trial exhibit inconsistencies. Lawyer Harvinderjit Singh contended that funds deposited into Najib's accounts were transacted without his knowledge, asserting a lack of mens rea, or the intent and knowledge required for a criminal offence. He suggested that the prosecution's case relies on a presumption of knowledge, which he argued is insufficient for a conviction.
Inconsistencies in Witness Accounts Highlighted

Harvinderjit Singh specifically pointed to perceived discrepancies within the prosecution's presentation of evidence. He argued that the prosecution's approach involved taking minor details and amplifying them, suggesting an attempt to construct a case based on selected admissions rather than a comprehensive narrative. This strategy, according to the defence, does not meet the necessary legal thresholds for a conviction, and therefore, Najib should be acquitted.
Allegations of Unknowing Transactions and Lack of Intent

A central argument presented by the defence is that the RM42 million from SRC International ended up in Najib's bank accounts through transactions that occurred without his awareness. This assertion directly challenges the element of mens rea, which requires proof that the accused intended to commit a crime or knew that their actions constituted an offence. The defence maintains that the absence of such intent or knowledge should lead to an acquittal.
Affidavit from 2016 Not an Admission of Guilt for 2014 Events

The defence also addressed an affidavit submitted by Najib in 2016 concerning a separate civil suit. Harvinderjit Singh argued that this affidavit, which affirmed that RM42 million in accounts under Najib's name originated from SRC International, should not be construed as an admission of guilt for events that transpired in 2014. He stated that an affidavit from a later date cannot be used to establish guilt for an earlier period.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Are witness testimonies consistent in the SRC trial?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends