Why did Rosmah fail to provide evidence of jewellery seizure?

Question

Accepted Answer

Rosmah Failed to Prove Jewellery Seizure Due to Lack of Evidence and Witness Testimony

The High Court ruled that Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the 43 pieces of jewellery, valued at RM67.4 million, were seized by the police. This failure was a critical factor in the court finding her liable for the missing items. Rosmah's defence, which relied on the assertion of a police raid and subsequent seizure, was deemed untenable as she could not substantiate these claims with concrete proof or the testimony of key individuals.
Insufficient Evidence Presented for Seizure Claim

The court found that Rosmah's allegation of the jewellery being seized by the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) constituted a positive defence. However, she failed to meet the legal burden of proving this defence. The evidence presented indicated that only one item was identified in forfeiture proceedings and returned to the plaintiff, Global Royalty Trading SAL. There was no proof presented to the court that the remaining 43 pieces of jewellery were ever seized during the police raid at Pavilion Residences in 2018.
Failure to Call Key Witnesses

A significant weakness in Rosmah's defence was her failure to call essential witnesses who were allegedly involved in handling and moving the jewellery. These individuals, described as unnamed security personnel, bodyguards, staff, and a butler, were purportedly privy to how the jewellery was packed, transported, and safeguarded. By not presenting their testimony, Rosmah's case was substantially eroded, as their accounts could have potentially corroborated her claims about the seizure or the circumstances surrounding the jewellery's disappearance.
Inability to Account for Jewellery's Fate

The court determined that Rosmah had failed to account for the jewellery's whereabouts while in her custody. Once the delivery, possession, and non-return of the items were established, the legal burden shifted to her to demonstrate that the loss and failure to return were not due to negligence or a breach of her duty of care. Her attempts to deflect responsibility by pointing to the police raid and the actions of bodyguards were insufficient to discharge this burden, as these explanations were considered speculative and lacked substantiation.
Admitted Possession and Consignment Arrangement

Rosmah did not deny signing the consignment note, which established her acceptance of possession of the jewellery. Her liability arose independently from this admitted acceptance. The court's findings were based on four interrelated legal principles: admissions under the Evidence Act, prior pleaded positions and inconsistent conduct, consignment arrangements, and bailment under the Contracts Act. These principles, when applied to the undisputed facts of delivery, receipt, entrustment for viewing, lack of purchase, and failure to return, inevitably led to her being found liable.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did Rosmah fail to provide evidence of jewellery seizure?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends