Why did the MACC officer disagree with the suggestion of an overlooked investigation?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Investigating Officer Disagreed with the Suggestion of an Overlooked Investigation Because His Inquiry Was Based on a Lodged Complaint.

The investigating officer, Senior Superintendent Zulhilmi Ramli of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), stated that his investigation was conducted based on the complaint that was lodged. He explicitly disagreed with the suggestion that his inquiry had overlooked the matter of VST Cemerlang Sdn Bhd's participation in the tender process for the Penang undersea tunnel project.
Basis of Investigation

Zulhilmi Ramli's investigation was initiated and guided by a specific complaint received. He maintained that this complaint formed the foundation of his inquiry, and he did not deviate from its parameters.
Unawareness of Zarul Ahmad's Links to VST Cemerlang

During cross-examination, Zulhilmi Ramli indicated he was unsure whether Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli had influenced VST Cemerlang's bid. He stated he only knew of Zarul Ahmad's links to Consortium Zenith Beijing Urban Construction Group (CZBUCG), the company that ultimately scored highest in the tender evaluation.
Scope of Inquiry Regarding VST Cemerlang

When questioned about Zarul Ahmad's potential influence or interest in VST Cemerlang to enable its participation, Zulhilmi Ramli responded that he did not know. This lack of knowledge regarding Zarul Ahmad's specific involvement with VST Cemerlang contributed to the defence lawyer's suggestion that this aspect might have been overlooked.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did the MACC officer disagree with the suggestion of an overlooked investigation?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends