Najib Razak is accused of using his position to obtain bribes amounting to RM2.3 billion of 1Malaysia Development Bhd funds and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, November 15, 2022.Hga030（www.hg108.vip）是一个开放皇冠即时比分、代理最新登录线路、会员最新登录线路、皇冠代理APP下载、皇冠会员APP下载、皇冠线路APP下载、皇冠电脑版下载、皇冠手机版下载的皇冠新现金网平台。Hga030上登录线路最新、新2皇冠网址更新最快,Hga030开放皇冠会员注册、皇冠代理开户等业务。
THE prosecution in Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) case has sought to admit audio recordings for identification in the trial, to rebut the former prime minister’s defence that monies went into his personal bank accounts were donations.
Senior deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram submitted that the audio recording of an alleged conversation between Najib and a Middle-Eastern leader was highly relevant to refute the accused’s defence.
“We say that the contents of the tape and transcript will go to some extent if not the whole length to rebut the defence that the accused received a donation and that he thought he was dealing with monies that were donated to him.
“I have to meet that defence and I have to rebut that defence, for that purpose this evidence is highly relevant,” he said at Najib’s trial of using his position to obtain bribes amounting to RM2.3 billion of 1MDB funds and 21 charges of money laundering involving the same amount.
Yesterday, Sri Ram played an audio clip in court, with the 42nd prosecution witness, namely former Treasury secretary-general Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah identifying one of the voices there as sounding like Najib’s.,
The voice identified as sounding like Najib had addressed the other individual as “Your Highness” and spoke about the need to resolve an impasse regarding 1MDB and International Petroleum Investment Co, which was alleged to be embarrassing to both Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates.
Sri Ram said the recording should be admissible under section 41(A) of the MACC Act and that it is a “special provision”, which takes precedence over section 65 of the Evidence Act that deals with documentary evidence.
“For that purpose, we also submit that a tape recording, a recording of this nature, is a document. My Lord, even if the audio was obtained irregularly or illegally, it will still be admissible,” said the prosecutor.
Section 41(A) of the MACC Act states that where any document or a copy of any document is obtained by the MACC under this act, such document shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings under this act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law.
Najib’s lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, however, objected to the audio recording and the transcript being admitted as evidence in the trial, suggesting that this was an “illegal taping” and not to be used in court, and also highlighted that the conversation was between two heads of state.,
kiếm tiền online tại nhà（www.84vng.com）：kiếm tiền online tại nhà（www.84vng.com） cổng Chơi tài xỉu uy tín nhất việt nam。kiếm tiền online tại nhà（www.84vng.com）game tài Xỉu đánh bạc online công bằng nhất，kiếm tiền online tại nhà（www.84vng.com）cổng game không thể dự đoán can thiệp，mở thưởng bằng blockchain ,đảm bảo kết quả công bằng.