Rosmah S Second Bid To Recuse Judge An Abuse Of Process Dpp

---

 


Rosmah Mansor’s latest application to recuse a judge from hearing her RM7 million money laundering and tax evasion case is “fatally flawed”, a deputy public prosecutor contended.
Gopal Sri Ram submitted before the Kuala Lumpur High Court today that the bid is an abuse of the court process as trial judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan already decided on a similar application by her last year.
On Dec 14, Zaini dismissed Rosmah’s earlier bid to have him removed as the trial judge for the criminal hearing of her case. The wife of the former prime minister had contended that there was a risk of bias.
During open-court proceedings before Zaini today, former federal court judge Sri Ram submitted that the recusal application actually sought similar reliefs like the earlier failed recusal bid.
“We submit that this application is fatally flawed. Your Lordship has already heard (and dismissed) another recusal application on Dec 14.
“We (prosecution) looked at the present application, it is for the same relief.
“It is an abuse of (court) process as Your Lordship (Zaini) has already heard submission on this issue on Dec 14 last year,” he said.
DPP Gopal Sri RamSri Ram pointed out that apart from it being a total abuse of the court process, the doctrine of estoppel works against Rosmah.
“This (present recusal) application is a non-starter,” the DPP submitted.
Lawyer: New bid based on different grounds
However, Rosmah’s counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jalaluddin counter-submitted that the second recusal bid is not an abuse of the court process, as it is based on different grounds.
The defence counsel said that the previous application was premised on the ground of Zaini having allowed the prosecution to raise the issue of Rosmah’s money laundering case in her other separate case, namely a corruption case linked to the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid energy project in Sarawak.
Zaini is not only hearing the ongoing solar corruption case against Rosmah, but also presiding over her present money laundering case which has yet to go for a full trial.
Sri Ram is the lead DPP in both criminal cases against her.
As Rosmah looked on from the dock, Firoz submitted that the present judge-recusal application is premised on different grounds, among them is that Zaini has heard numerous other court cases, directly and indirectly, involving her.
The lawyer submitted that there is a risk of the other court cases influencing the trial judge’s mind when presiding over Rosmah’s money laundering and tax evasion case.
Firoz was referring to Zaini having heard court cases such as the government’s 1MDB-linked forfeiture suit against Rosmah and her family.
The lawyer pointed out that Zaini is also presiding over the 1MDB audit report trial against her husband, former premier Najib Abdul Razak.
Judge Mohamed Zaini MazlanFiroz added that this is exacerbated by the trial judge having ordered Rosmah to enter her defence in the solar corruption case last year.
“This is a unique situation where we do not seek to cast personal aspersion on Your Lordship, but it is a question of human frailty, of having heard witnesses and evidence against the accused and her family, which would affect the way Your Lordship perceives the credibility of the accused (Rosmah) and the progress of this trial (money laundering and tax evasion case),” the lawyer submitted.
At the end of proceedings this afternoon, Zaini fixed March 21 at 2pm to deliver his decision on Rosmah’s application to recuse him from her money laundering and tax evasion case.
17 charges
The 70-year-old accused faces 12 money laundering charges involving RM7,097,750 and five charges of failing to declare her income to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB).
The offences were purportedly committed at Affin Bank Berhad, Bangunan Getah Asli branch, ground Floor, 148 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur, between Dec 4, 2013, and June 8, 2017, and the IRB office at Kompleks Bangunan Kerajaan, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim, KL, between May 1, 2014, and May 1, 2018.
The money laundering charges are framed under Section 4(1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and punishable under Section 4(1) of the act, with a jail term of up to 15 years and a fine of not less than five times the value of the unlawful activity proceeds or RM5 million, whichever is higher.
The tax evasion charges under Section 77(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967 claimed that Rosmah failed to furnish returns of her income - for the 2013 to 2017 assessment years - to the IRB director-general on or before April 30, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 without reasonable excuse, in alleged contravention of Section 112 of the Act. - Mkini

---