SRC trail: Negated are the "witness tampered" testimonies

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

SRC trail: Negated are the "witness tampered" testimonies

Last week or two saw a chorus of KWAP's witnesses gave testimonies that seemed scripted to pin on Najib.

It started with the wide media coverage to the testimony of the 29th witness, AVP Amirul Imran Ahmat, and confirmed by witnesses #33, Ambalagam Marapan and witness #34, Amirah Muhammad Nor.

However, Amirah was caught by defense lawyer giving testimony similarly worded as Ambalagam. She admitted MACC assisted with the choice of words or as quoted in Malay, "...SPRM telah bantu saya dengan ayatnya saja."

A lawyer cautioned in jest against accusing MACC tampering with the witness, but "assisting with words" was the way to put it when caught being coached.

Witness #35, KWAP's VP for legal and secretarial, Azlida Mazni Arshad chorused the same storyline. She told the court of being informed by KWAP Chairman of Najib's request to expedite the KWAP loans to SRC.

Her cross examination was awaited by media. Upon cross-examination, she negated the bevy of statements meant to proof Najib interfered in the process. She acknowledged KWAP is not bound by Najib's instruction.

The Malay Mail Online reported below with the highlighted Q&A in red:

SRC trial: KWAP investment panel not bound by instructions from any federal minister to approve loans, High Court told

Published 8 hours ago on 14 May 2019

BY EMMANUEL SANTA MARIA CHIN & KENNETH TEE

Vice-president of KWAP's legal and secretariat department Azlida Mazni Arshad is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex, May 14, 2019. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, May 14 — The Retirement Fund Incorporated’s (KWAP) investment panel need not obey instructions from the prime minister or Cabinet members when approving loans within its purview, the High Court heard today.

The prosecution’s 35th witness in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s trial over RM42 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd, KWAP Legal and Secretarial Department vice president Azlida Mazni Arshad, testified that the panel is expected to act and decide independently in such matters.

She said this when Najib’s defence lawyer, Harvinderjit Singh, asked about the procedural steps that are taken before the panel approves a loan.

Harvinderjit: Do you agree the investment panel is not bound by instructions of the prime minister?

Azlida: Ideally, they are not bound.

Harvinderjit: Do you agree they are not bound to follow recommendations made in an Investment Paper submitted to them?

Azlida: Yes.

Harvinderjit: They (the panel) can choose to reject (the loan application) outright?

Azlida: Yes.

Last week, Azlida testified that KWAP received instructions from Najib in 2011 to hasten the loan approval for the first RM2 billion to be channelled SRC International.

Azlida explained to Harvinderjit that loans not backed up with sufficient documentation would usually be rejected by KWAP’s Fixed Income Department, the body that oversees investment portfolios undertaken by the pension fund.

Harvinderjit: If the Fixed Income Department feels they do not have enough information, let's say (they only have) 25 per cent of the needed documents, he (the officer in charge) could have recommended to his superior to reject the application?

Azlida: Ideally, that is the way.

This clarification was in response to the testimony made last week by the prosecution’s 29th witness, KWAP’s Fixed Income Department’s former vice president Amirul Imran Ahmat, who said that he had sought copious information from SRC International.

The information being sought, he had said, was in relation to the loans but only received an estimated 25 per cent of what he had requested.

Amirul Imran was the KWAP official that drafted the paper for the proposed RM2 billion loan, as a proposed investment for KWAP’s investment panel to consider.

Azlida during today’s proceedings also noted how it was the prerogative of Investment Panel to verify, defer, or request additional information from the loan applicants, by way of a meeting between the parties involved.

She also agreed with Harvinderjit that the investment panel could have requested for more information before approving the second RM2 billion loan to SRC International, and concurred with Najib’s lawyer that the panel had instead chosen to rely on the security of the government guarantee that was given with the first RM2 billion loan.

She had verified last week that former KWAP chief executive officer Datuk Azian Mohd Nor had told in the investment panel meeting on July 19, 2011, that the prime minister had informed KWAP’s chairman to expedite the approval process of the loan to SRC International.

In today’s proceedings, however, Azlida confirmed there was no written record from the minutes of the investment panel meeting back in 2011 that stated the loan was approved only because they were instructed to do so by Najib who prime minister at the time.

Harvinderjit then posed to Azlida that such an instruction to the panel would have been in the minutes if it were true, which she agreed.

She also agreed that the investment panel were not ‘forced’ to approve both RM2 billion loans to SRC International, in Aug 2011 and March 2012 respectively.

Today marks the 17th day of Najib's trial on seven charges of criminal of breach of trust (CBT), abuse of position, and money-laundering over RM42 million funds belonging to SRC International.

Wih this testimony, Azlida raised doubts for defense on the earlier testimonies of herself and other KWAP colleagues. It could weakened the prosecution's case and it is leaving it to chance to expect  prosecution to argue their case.

For a case determining moment, it is strange that Malay mainstream media ignored to highlight in their reporting, but repeat the same line of concern as other members of the KWAP chorus. It is as if the media mestro could only mislead the Malay majority by denying proper reporting.

Saving it for a latter day Kadir Jasin propaganda.

According to a reliable source, these statements in court by KWAP witnesses may be re-recorded statements taken after the fell of BN. It was not mentioned in the investigations done earlier.

These witnesses are still under employment at KWAP and one could expect them to be under pressure to keep their jobs.

However, a source with access to a KWAP official higher than these witnesses said one top KWAP official see no abuse of power or exerting of influence on Najib part. There were due process done.

Defense would stress this point by highlighting a testimony by an EPU officer which rejected the  approval by Najib with a suggestion for a different purpose of the loan to SRC. Does that drive the point with the judge?

For the time being, chances seemed low for Najib to go to jail soon on this low hanging fruit case. Tun Dr Mahathir's political plan as claimed by Outsyed will need to be further delayed. Political instability looks likely to persist for a while.

The better chance to jail Najib is the SRC case that happened and documents available locally. Perhaps, Mahathir may have a better chance with the other lower probability cases. The 1MDB trial which require foreign evidences and witnesses is due to start on August 19th.

Yesterday, the same judge with the SRC case, Datok Mohd Nazlan Ghazali fixed the trial of Najib and former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Dr Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah to commenced on Jan 6, next year. Read more in NST here.

This case and the one against Najib and Arul Kanda has revenge and political expediency written all over.

Thus far, the non-legal view see there are sufficient doubt on the evidences presented by prosecution on the SRC case.

It may need the judge to make a decision purely on the cheques Najib had issued, and ignore the facts raised during cross examination and if there is prima facie, evidences to be presented by defense to put Najib away on this.

It would then not be a New Malaysia with a rule of law, but reverting to a distant Malaysia which could rule the law, fabricate excuses to fire Chief Justice, and unconstitutionally change Malay rulers' rights.

SRC Got RM4bil From KWAP

By Admin-S Last updated May 1, 2019

From your knowledge of Umno, can you confirm if all party presidents were in fact, all the time, hold the political funds in person?

(The Star) – A total of RM4bil was credited into the account of SRC International Sdn Bhd from the country’s largest public services pension fund, Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP), the High Court heard.

AmBank manager Wedani Senen, who is attached to the remittance centre, testified that a sum of RM2bil was transferred from KWAP to SRC International’s account on Aug 29, 2011.

The money was credited into SRC’s AmIslamic Bank account.

DPP: Can you confirm that this confirmation advice was issued by AmBank’s Rentas Unit?

Wedani: Yes.

The court was told that the money was credited in four tranches of RM500mil each.

Wedani also confirmed that on March 28, 2012, another RM2bil was credited into the same SRC account in one lump sum.

Wedani, who was in examination-in-chief by deputy public prosecutor Sulaiman Kho Kheng Fuei, explained that the payment was split into four as bank officers who ranked manager and below could only approve transactions with a RM500mil limit.

For the transaction on March 28, Wedani said a senior manager with a higher clearance was asked to approve the RM2bil in one lump sum as they had 20 minutes to transfer the money before Bank Negara Malaysia closed at 6pm for the day.

The witness also told the court that a confirmation advice was a document that was automatically generated by the Rentas System for completion of money transferred from another bank into an AmBank’s account.For monies that are transferred out from an AmBank account into another bank’s account, the document is called completion advice.

The court also heard that RM2.5mil from Datuk Seri Najib Razak was used for the purpose of Barisan Nasional’s political defence operations in 2015.

The amount was paid to a known associate of Najib – Habibul Rahmah Kadir Shah – via a cheque and this was then used to gather political intelligence and to establish goodwill among the political fraternity.Habibul, who owns the firm HKS Consultant, testified that he was given RM2.5mil by Najib as the operations were for Barisan’s political benefits.

When cross-examined by Najib’s counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Habibul said the advice, political analysis and strategy was provided to Najib specifically.

Habibul said he did not question where the money came from as he believed the money was from political donation.

Shafee: Why do you believe it is from political donation?

Habibul: Since 1984 when I entered Umno, there’s always been talk that if you are the prime minister, everyone wants to give you political donation to establish goodwill with you.

Shafee: So you knew when you joined the politics of Umno, that political donation was the order of the day for Umno?

Habibul: Yes.

Shafee: From your knowledge of Umno, can you confirm if all party presidents were in fact, all the time, hold the political funds in person?

Habibul: I believe so.

The witness said that in politics one must have a network of people that would provide you with information from time to time.

“It’s also quite normal that nobody gives you info for free. At the same time, you also need to develop political goodwill among those politicians like division heads so that if you need to execute some strategy, they will be willing to come forward and help you,” he said.Another witness called to the stand was Solar Shine Sdn Bhd owner Datuk Lew Choon Lai for a RM1mil cheque by Najib to promote 1Malaysia.

A feedback of the campaign was then compiled in a report, which Lew personally presented to Najib.

Lew first met Najib in 2010 when he followed Lion Group chairman Tan Sri William Cheng, who was going to meet Najib in Putrajaya.

Najib is facing seven charges of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving RM42mil belonging to SRC International.

The hearing continues before Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali tomorrow.

SRC trial: Najib didn’t lodge reports despite irregular signatures, massive transactions in personal accounts

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. 
   
8. 
   
9. HOME 
10. MALAYSIA

SRC trial: Najib didn’t lodge reports despite irregular signatures, massive transactions in personal accounts

Published 16 hours ago on 30 April 2019

By Emmanuel Santa Maria Chin

AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan branch manager, R. Uma Devi is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex April 25, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

KUALA LUMPUR, April 30  — Datuk Seri Najib Razak did not flag activities linked to his three AmBank accounts even after millions of ringgit moved in and out of these, the High Court heard as part of his trial involving RM42 million from a former 1MDB unit today.

AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan branch manager R. Uma Devi also testified today that the former prime minister took no action and made no complaint from 2011 to 2015 despite irregularities in the signatures of signatories he appointed via authorisation letters to the bank.

Uma Dewi, testifying for the fourth day in a row, then agreed with Najib’s lawyer, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, that it was abnormal for such inconsistencies to go unreported.

Shafee: Do you find it quite surprising, in view of what was raised earlier, of the bank records having such issues?

Uma Devi: It is quite unusual I would say.

Shafee: Looking at the documents, in relation to the matters we testified over various accounts, did you not find any documents that raised alarm, pertaining to sources of funds (in Najib’s accounts?)

Uma Devi: Not to the records I have.

Uma Devi is the 21st prosecution witness in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s money-laundering and criminal breach of trust trial over RM42 million of funds from SRC International, a former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) unit.

Uma Devi said despite principles and practises of each bank differing among each other, transactions of RM50,000 from overseas sources would usually raise alarm bells at branch level and require Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) approval.

She said that at branch level, transactions of such amounts would trigger a threshold report, requiring the owner of the recipient account to explain the source and purpose of the incoming funds.

The bank manager then explained banking procedures concerning suspected fraud, where if such cases were detected by the bank’s Anti-Money Laundering unit, a report would be made to the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) system first, and not necessarily the account holder.

Shafee: In relation to, if the bank itself finds something irregular, do you agree with me that the bank owes the duty to the account holder to alert the customer that they suspect something is not entirely right?

Uma Devi: Meaning if the account has any fraud? Usually we don’t inform the customer because it will tip them off. Normally we raise the issue to STR within the bank, and the Compliance Unit will investigate and inform the branch if they need to inform the customer. At the first stage, we will raise it with STR, and then prompt compliance (unit).

Shafee: Surely you don’t mean banish account holder. If you do find something not right, you must surely alert the holder if you suspect the ones who operate the account (are responsible). Wouldn’t you have to contact the holder and alert them?

Uma Devi: If it is proven that fraud is done by the account nominees, then we have to alert (them).

Shafee: When someone detects a different signature (on authorisation letters), there are grounds to alert (the bank)?

Uma Devi: After investigations then we will take action, we have to investigate.

Shafee: If (investigations are) not satisfactory?

Uma Devi: Then we will inform the account holder.

Concerning investigations and raids carried out by BNM on the AmBank branch she works at in 2015, Uma Devi also agreed that a report must have been reported for action to be taken by the then special task force was headed at that time by attorney general Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, then BNM governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, former inspector-general of police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, and then MACC chief Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed.

The trial will continue on May 2.

Will Najib Be Sent To Jail?

CORRIDORS OF POWERHEADLINE

By Raja Petra Kamarudin Last updated May 1, 2019

1.2kShares

 Share

I can only say we have walked down this road before. Back in the 1990s, we were talking about fixing up Anwar. Today, it is about fixing up Najib. But one thing never changes. And that is whichever side the Malays are on will end up the winner. Hence this is not about Najib. This is about who the Malays support. And currently the Malays are with Najib.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tell the truth even if Sedition Act hangs over you, said Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. There is nothing to worry about if you tell the truth and get probed for sedition as it does not mean there will be prosecution, Mahathir said.

In 2001, when Mahathir was the Prime Minister, I was arrested for sedition — twice, in fact. I was also detained under the Internal Security Act because eight months earlier I had launched the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) and had gone to the United States to meet the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to brief them on Anwar’s political persecution.

The FAC campaign also extended to the Australian Parliament, US Congress, UK Parliament and EU Parliament. Of course, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., were also in our campaign list.

In short, the whole world was “educated” about Anwar’s case and because of that they supported Anwar against Mahathir’s government (which is why they detained me).

In 2000, I brought Anwar’s case to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

I always tell people, in Malaysia, they allow you freedom of speech. It is freedom after speech that you do not have.

Anyway, the new IGP, Abdul Hamid Bador, who used to be in the Special Branch, can tell you more. Hamid knows my sentiments and he knows about my feelings towards Anwar.

The Special Branch grilled me about my work in the FAC and regarding my interactions with “foreign powers”. They accused me of working for the CIA and threatened to charge me for treason, which carries the death penalty. When that did not work, they offered to show me the proof that Anwar was, in fact, guilty of sodomy — so I am wrong for supporting him.

I asked the Special Branch what made them think I was heading the FAC and campaigning for Anwar because I think he was innocent of sodomy?

The US supported Anwar against Mahathir

This caught them off-guard. “Then why would you support and campaign for Anwar if you think he is guilty of sodomy?” they asked me.

The issue is not whether Anwar is innocent or guilty, I told them. I do not care about that (because I do not care whether you are straight, gay or bisexual). The issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Anwar’s guilt. And I attended Anwar’s trial almost every day and I saw with my own eyes that the prosecution failed to prove Anwar’s guilt. And the judge ruled that Anwar is guilty because he failed to prove his innocence. Ok

That is what I oppose, not that I think Anwar did not poke his pecker into the bontot of a jambu.

The Special Branch had no reply to that. In fact, they admitted that the prosecution had done a bad job in spite of all the evidence the police managed to gather.

The Special Branch admitted that the prosecution messed up and failed to prove Anwar’s guilt but they sent him to jail anyway

“Was it intentional?” I asked them. “Did the prosecution purposely mess up to give Anwar strong grounds to appeal the verdict later and get off?” With a dejected look on their faces, they murmured that this is one of the suspicions.

So, even the Special Branch was wondering how the prosecution could mess up such an easy case. And, when Anwar appealed his conviction, the court ruled that even though they were convinced of Anwar’s guilt, the prosecution had failed to prove Anwar’s guilt, and they released Anwar on 2nd September 2004.

So there you are. The court said they felt Anwar is guilty. But the prosecution failed to prove it. Hence the court had to reluctantly release Anwar.

I debated this matter with the Special Branch in 2001 (three years before the court released Anwar in 2004). And I was right. In 2001, I asked the Special Branch why choose the crime of sodomy to use against Anwar? Surely there are many other “easier” crimes they can use.

The Malays are with Najib and not with Pakatan Harapan

The Special Branch replied that this was the most effective of all. Malays will get disgusted with sodomy. Any other crime such as abuse of power, conflict of interest, corruption, etc., will not upset the Malays as much as sodomy would.

Okay, so, in short, sodomy instead of another crime would have the maximum impact and would result in the Malays turning their backs on Anwar. Even corruption is not enough to get the Malays to feel disgusted with Anwar. So, basically, the (disgusting) sodomy charge was meant to sway the Malay support away from Anwar.

And the same thing is happening to Najib Tun Razak. Mahathir wanted him ousted so they tried to pin all sorts of crimes on him. Then, because of the non-stop allegations and the trial by media, Pakatan Harapan was forced to arrest and charge Najib. And currently his trial is ongoing.

Puteri Umno is spearheading the fight to win the hearts and minds of the young Malays

But then Najib was alleged to have stolen RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money. However, his trial is for stealing RM42 million of SRC International’s money. Yes, RM42 million, not RM42 billion. And SRC, not 1MDB.

And then, as the trial progresses, it appears that Najib’s claim that the money came from the Arabs and that he later returned the money to them is true after all. Furthermore, Bank Negara Malaysia was aware of the whole thing and approved the transactions. So it was not done “under-the-table” after all, as you would if it was money-laundering.

And, to add icing to the cake, some of the signatures on the transactions may not be Najib’s, so we are talking about forged signatures here. And the money was distributed and spent on political activities, which is quite normal for Malaysian politics (even Pakatan Harapan does it) and was being done since back in the 1980s when Mahathir and Anwar were in charge of Umno.

I can only say we have walked down this road before. Back in the 1990s, we were talking about fixing up Anwar. Today, it is about fixing up Najib. But one thing never changes. And that is whichever side the Malays are on will end up the winner. Hence this is not about Najib. This is about who the Malays support. And currently the Malays are with Najib.

 

Is there a mystery hand orchestrating the SRC deposit, BMM raid, and leak to WSJ?

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Is there a mystery hand orchestrating the SRC deposit, BMM raid, and leak to WSJ?

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Is there a mystery hand orchestrating the SRC deposit, BMM raid, and leak to WSJ?

In a previous posting HERE, doubt was raised on a BNM officer ability to quote exact clause of the law contravened in his police report about half an hour after the raid on Ambank office.

The subsequent witnesses seemed be giving glowing words of Dato Najib's generosity that a commentator twitter asked where is the part Najib is the "pencuri, penyamun dan perompak" (thief, bandit and robber)?

Husin Lempoyang hinted Mahathir's "mencuri, menyamun dan merompak" or his plundered wealth can be seen in his children.

Today's witness, Umi Devi spent a whole day reading from text. Who prepared for the bank officer? Why was she allowed to read prepared text instead of being cross examined by the DPP? Does she has hearing problem thus could not do a Q&A?

Yesterday, prosecutor raised a pertinent issue, in which RM42 million of RM104 million of SRC money went to Najib's account, but what happen to the rest?

MMO reported:

Najib's lawyer claims only RM42m out of RM103m went from SRC to client

Published 1 day ago on 24 April 2019

By Ida Lim

KUALA LUMPUR, April 24 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyer today produced in court a chart of the money trail of a total RM103 million from former 1MDB unit SRC International Sdn Bhd, including a total of RM42 million to Najib himself.

Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh outlined the money trail during December 2014 to April 2015, saying that the funds flowed from SRC International to its subsidiary Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd, and that the funds were subsequently transferred to SRC International-linked firm Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd’s Affin Bank accounts.

Harvinderjit said the funds then flowed from Ihsan Perdana to Najib as well as other unspecified recipients.

Harvinderjit said that only RM42 million of the RM103 million went to Najib.

Harvinderjit outlined the money trail when seeking for documents from an Affin Bank officer to identify who received the rest of the money from the RM103 million sum.

Affin Bank processing officer Rosaiah Mohamed Rosli is the 20th prosecution witness.

Today is day eight of Najib’s money-laundering and corruption trial over RM42 million of SRC International Sdn Bhd.

At the start of Najib’s trial, Attorney General Tommy Thomas had said the prosecution would seek to establish that RM42 million of SRC International funds passed through the accounts of the company’s corporate social responsibility partner Ihsan Perdana and SRC International’s subsidiary Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd before reaching Najib’s AmBank accounts.

Today, when seeking for the additional 11 bank documents, Harvinderjit argued that all RM103 million originated from the same source — SRC International — and that it was essential for the defence to learn where the rest of the money went.

“If the prosecution’s case is that out of SRC, a total of RM42 million ended up into accounts belonging to Datuk Seri Najib, it is also relevant to note over RM60 million did not end up in Datuk Seri Najib’s accounts and ended up somewhere else.

“This is why I say this is desirable and necessary for us to determine where the money went to,” he said.

“It is part of our defence that the same people in SRC were conducting some business, questionable and dubious business, where money from SRC has been channelled to a number of entities and issued to unknown recipients, part of the money may have ended up with Datuk Seri Najib,” he added.

Ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram objected, however, to Harvinderjit’s request for the additional documents by arguing that these were outside the scope of Najib’s trial involving seven charges relating to SRC International’s RM42 million.

“This case is based on seven charges, specific seven charges. This court is not going to conduct an inquiry of how other money irrelevant to these charges were spent or used on Our case is solely related to RM42 million as stated in the charges,” Sithambaram said.

“If we go on this thread, if this is allowed, for every banker, we have to go on a wild goose chase which has no relevance to the charges,” he said, noting that Najib’s lawyers were free to produce documents at the defence stage later on.

The trial is currently at the prosecution stage, in which prosecutors must prove that there is a case for Najib to answer and enter his defence.

Harvinderjit responded to say the way the money from SRC International allegedly reached Najib was “part of the same system” where the rest of the RM103 million was paid out, insisting that those documents on the recipients of the over RM60 million figure were consequently relevant here.

“It’s my client’s defence that he was manipulated by certain people and these people gained tremendously,” he claimed.

High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali finally ruled that Najib’s lawyers would only be allowed to get one additional banking document considered relevant to Najib’s charges in this case.

The document that Najib was allowed to get from Affin Bank’s Rosaiah is regarding an RM8 million cheque with the number 0019327 as issued from an Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd’s Affin Bank account on December 30, 2014.

Earlier, when outlining seven transactions in his own chart on the purported money trail of funds originating from SRC International, Harvinderjit had said that RM40 million went into Gandingan Mentari’s account and was transferred to Ihsan Perdana on December 24, 

Harvinderjit said RM27 million and RM5 million out of the RM40 million were transferred to accounts belonging to Najib, while the remaining RM8 million from the RM40 million sum was transferred out via a cheque ending with 19327 to an “unknown recipient”.

The trial resumes this afternoon.

Last week, Najib’s lead defence lawyer, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, claimed to reporters that his client was purportedly the “victim” of a “conspiracy” by fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho.

It is only fair for Najib's lawyer to request the 20th witness to furnish document regarding the transactions of the other SRC money recipient accounts.

The lawyer believed certain people inside SRC and Gandingan Mentari have been conducting questionable transactions.

How could the amount that ended in Najib's account is known but other recipients are not made known.

Apparently these mysterious hands are not just transfering RM42 million but RM104 million from SRC to unknown recipients.

But the prosecution is hiding from the court the identity of the other recipients.

Prior to this, Najib has repeatedly said he expect donation from Saudi, but it looks now that it was SRC that was deposited into his personal accounts.

The bigger mystery possibly is the moment SRC money came in allegedly by mysterious hands, BNM came in to raid.

At the same time, the raid was mysteriously leaked to The Wall Street Journal which reported of the raid the next day on their portal.

MACC and Police have yet to start investigation then.

It is as if mysterious hidden hands deposited SRC money into Najib's account and immediately leaked to WSJ.

Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah said the email between the mystery person and Ambank officer Joanna shows an instruction not to show to PM.

PM was not given a copy of his account statement. A mistake which usually end with Banks losing their lawsuits against errand borrowers.

Will it be revealed in court of the mysterious hands that deposited the money into Najib's account? Who was the mysterious hand at BNM able to influence BNM investigation on Ambank? Who at BNM empowered and accessed to leak info to WSJ?

Today's witness Umi Devi will be interesting to hear her turn to be cross examined by defense lawyer. [Update 4/26 12:00 PM: She confirm an inconsistency between her testimony with that of a BNM officer.]

Nik Faisal was mentioned as an authorised Manager of Najib's account. Another widely known is the late Dato Adlin, Najib's Principal Private Secretary.

Is Nik Faisal the mysterious hand? Will he appear in court as witness or speculated to be crown witness?

Updated: 26/4 9:00 AM