Blow to prosecution in Eric Chia caseThe prosecution’s case against Tan Sri Eric Chia was dealt a crushing blow yesterday.
The Federal Court ruled that key evidence obtained against the tycoon in Hong Kong was inadmissible in his ongoing criminal breach of trust (CBT) trial in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
The decision was a severe setback to Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail who went to Hong Kong, Japan and Switzerland two years ago to gather evidence against Chia.
Gani had then said that enough evidence had been collected to show the "money trail from Malay- sia to banks in Switzerland". The evidence collected in the two-day trial in Hong Kong in 2004 showed that RM76.4 million was transferred from Malaysia to Hong Kong before ending up in Switzerland via Japan.
Shafee pointed out that the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 (MACMA) allowed for evidence to be gathered from outside the country, but this was subject to conditions in the Evidence Act 1950.
The apex court yesterday agreed with the submission of Chia’s counsel Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah that there were "procedural flaws" in how prosecution had obtained that evidence. He said prosecution did not give valid reasons why witnesses in Hong Kong could not come to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence.
The apex court yesterday agreed with the submission of Chia’s counsel Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah that there were "procedural flaws" in how prosecution had obtained that evidence. He said prosecution did not give valid reasons why witnesses in Hong Kong could not come to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence.
Following yesterday’s decision, those following the trial closely are of the opinion that the prosecution would have an uphill task to prove a prima facie case against Chia as there was a break in the chain of evidence.
Interestingly, the prosecution never learned from past cases. I was doing a case study involving a civil suit against Pilecon Bhd who had a legal decision made against them from Hong Kong. It could not be served here in Malaysia for the same reason cited by Shafee., i.e. the conditions in the Evidence Act 1950. Hong Kong is no more a Commonwealth state. It belongs to China and is a Special Administrative Region of China. China do not have treatise with Malaysia and is not a signatory of the treaty that encompasses the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 .
Never learned. It's hard to learn.
Interestingly, the prosecution never learned from past cases. I was doing a case study involving a civil suit against Pilecon Bhd who had a legal decision made against them from Hong Kong. It could not be served here in Malaysia for the same reason cited by Shafee., i.e. the conditions in the Evidence Act 1950. Hong Kong is no more a Commonwealth state. It belongs to China and is a Special Administrative Region of China. China do not have treatise with Malaysia and is not a signatory of the treaty that encompasses the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 .
Never learned. It's hard to learn.
3 comments:
This is a simple case, If Eric goes down, so does Tun.
E = MC2
Eric = Mahatir x Eric plus many others
This is a simple case, If Eric goes down, so does Tun.
E = MC2
Eric = Mahatir x Eric plus many others
Taxpayer's money went down the drain, paying for someone's world tour to Hong Kong, Japan & Switzerland. Way to go!
Post a Comment