Why did the High Court acquit Ahmad Zahid in the foreign visa bribery case?

Question

Accepted Answer

High Court Acquitted Ahmad Zahid in Foreign Visa Bribery Case Due to Prosecution's Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case

The High Court acquitted Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi of all 40 bribery charges related to Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) due to the prosecution's failure to prove a prima facie case. Specifically, the court found that the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of the charges, particularly the receipt of corrupt monies, and that key prosecution witnesses provided unreliable testimonies.
Unreliable Witness Testimonies Undermined Prosecution's Case

Justice Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa ruled that the testimonies of three key prosecution witnesses—former UKSB executives Wan Quoris Shah Wan Abdul Ghani and Harry Lee Vui Khiun, and former administrative manager David Tan Siong Sun—were unreliable and untrustworthy. Tan, for instance, admitted under cross-examination that his statement about paying RM3 million to Ahmad Zahid was an afterthought, leading the judge to find him to have "zero credibility."
Failure to Prove Core Elements of Charges

The prosecution failed to prove the main ingredients of the charges framed under Section 165 of the Penal Code and Section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act. The most significant failure was in proving the "foremost important element in all the charges: the receipt of corrupt monies." The court noted that the source of the alleged funds paid to Ahmad Zahid was unclear, with witnesses confirming the monies did not originate from UKSB itself.
Insufficient Evidence Regarding Fund Origins and Delivery

Further weaknesses in the prosecution's case included the failure to call crucial witnesses, such as 'Nicole Tan', who could have clarified the source of the funds allegedly paid to Ahmad Zahid. The court also highlighted the absence of evidence to ascertain the exact source of these funds, leaving unanswered doubt about whether the money even existed and who delivered it. The prosecution did not produce any sample envelopes for the alleged cash payments, making it difficult to comprehend how substantial amounts could have been contained.
Lack of Corroborating Physical Evidence

The prosecution also failed to present corroborating physical evidence. Neither close-circuit television footage nor toll receipts related to delivery visits to Ahmad Zahid's residence or the deputy prime minister's official residence were produced in court. This lack of tangible proof further weakened the prosecution's ability to substantiate the alleged transactions and delivery of funds.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why did the High Court acquit Ahmad Zahid in the foreign visa bribery case?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends