Is the Bali hotel share deal relevant to the CBT charge?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Bali Hotel Share Deal Is Not Relevant to the Criminal Breach of Trust Charge

The defence for Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi contends that the alleged criminal breach of trust (CBT) concerning RM17.9 million from Yayasan Akalbudi funds is not connected to a share purchase deal involving a Bali hotel. Lawyers for Ahmad Zahid argue that the prosecution's assertion of a link between the funds and the acquisition of shares in Ri-Yaz Assets Sdn Bhd, a company operating a hotel in Bali, is misplaced and irrelevant to the specific wording of the CBT charge.
The CBT Charge's Scope

The criminal breach of trust charge against Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as formulated, focuses solely on the allegation that he committed an offence when he transferred RM17.9 million from Yayasan Akalbudi to the law firm Lewis & Co in 2016. The charge document itself does not contain any mention of a share purchase, the company Ri-Yaz Assets, or a hotel in Bali. The defence's position is that the court should strictly adhere to the "four corners" of this charge when determining guilt.
Prosecution's Argument on Fund Misappropriation

The prosecution has argued that the RM17.9 million transfer was orchestrated with the intention of channelling RM8.6 million to facilitate the purchase of shares in Ri-Yaz Assets by Ahmad Zahid's daughter. Although this specific share deal was later aborted and the RM8.6 million was returned by the hotel firm, the prosecution views this transaction as evidence of Ahmad Zahid's intent to use the charity funds for personal benefit. This narrative, however, is contested by the defence as being outside the purview of the CBT charge.
Defence's Interpretation of Fund Ownership

The defence argues that the crucial question for the court is whether the RM17.9 million still belonged to Yayasan Akalbudi at the point it was transferred to Lewis & Co's client account. Based on testimony from prosecution witnesses, specifically the 87th prosecution witness, Muralidharan Balan Pillai, and the 66th prosecution witness, Faisalludin Mohamat Yusuff, the defence asserts that the funds remained the property of Yayasan Akalbudi. This, they contend, negates any element of misappropriation or breach of trust.
Allegations of "Overprosecution"

The defence has further argued that the prosecution has used the CBT charge as a foundation for two subsequent money-laundering charges. This strategy is described by the defence as "overprosecution" and an abuse of the court process, suggesting that charges have been brought without a strong legal basis. The defence's core argument remains that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case for the CBT charge as it is currently worded, irrespective of other alleged transactions.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Is the Bali hotel share deal relevant to the CBT charge?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends