Rm30m Suit No Detailed Proof Of Misrepresentation Submitted Witness

---

 


An investor suing businessperson Vinod Sekhar for alleged fraud conceded that he and other plaintiffs have not submitted detailed evidence in court to prove Vinod had misrepresented himself to the investors.
Graham David Bell, who is one of 12 plaintiffs in the suit and the only plaintiff witness, made the admission when cross-examined by Vinod’s counsel Rajan Navaratnam at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
Bell also agreed with several other contentions posed by Rajan, including that he was not privy to any discussions, dealings or transactions between Vinod (above) and the other plaintiffs, or that he had any personal knowledge of any kind of persuasion between Vinod and the other plaintiffs.
Rajan, who then zoomed in on Bell’s own claims and evidence in the suit, suggested to the witness that there is no evidence put forth in court to show Vinod had made any representation to him in respect of any investment, to which Bell replied, “Agree”.
Bell, who is a managing partner of Bridge Partners FZE, also agreed with the defence counsel’s contention that despite his own pleadings in the suit’s statement of claim, of having transferred US$250,000 (RM950,000) to Vinod upon his request on June 3, 2002, however, there was no evidence to prove the transaction.
Bell, 66, is the fourth out of 12 plaintiffs in the suit filed against Vinod and his wife, Winny Yeap Liew Heoh. Judge Adam @ Edward Abdullah is presiding over the suit, where Bell is testifying on behalf of all plaintiffs as ordered by the court.
Ten of the plaintiffs were investors with Vinod, namely Bell, Arthur J Mirante II, Ronald Barrie Clapham, Charles Robert Henry Stone, Paul Sallis Benney, Paul Nicholas Smith, Octavio Augusto Vallarino Arias, Simon Hafeitz Homsany, Talbortt Gerard Young and Uri Fruchtmann, while the remaining two, which were Andrew Murray-Watson and April Srivikorn, were Vinod’s former employees.
Suit background
The plaintiffs had filed a suit against the two defendants on May 31, 2023, where they were seeking RM30 million in damages, inclusive of interest, over several factors, including misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract.
They claimed that Vinod had persuaded them to invest their money with him or with various of his companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time.
In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said that they had queried Vinod on the bankruptcy matters via email on Sept 30, 2020, in which the latter “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that he is aligned with Anwar.
The plaintiffs believe that “Anwar” refers to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
They had named Yeap as the second defendant in the case in alleging her to have conspired with Vinod to perpetrate fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation against them.
Contempt application
Earlier today, counsel Colin Andrew Pereira, who appeared for the plaintiffs, made an oral application before the judge to cite a news outlet, particularly their writer, for contempt of court over an alleged misleading report on the case trial, as the report “commented on the merits of the suit.”
Colin submitted that, to his knowledge, there was no reporter from the said outlet who attended the trial yesterday.
“The report is very misleading (which) says ‘Vindication begins on the first day with significant wins including costs of RM60,000’.
“As far as I recall, there’s misreporting and it seems to suggest that (the court) has decided on truths and untruths,” he said, to which the judge said that the matter would be dealt with at a later date. - Mkini

---