Mohamed Zaini Mazlan in his written judgment said he therefore disregarded Chai Kin Kong’s testimony only in respect of the receipt.
“Chai, in my opinion, demonstrated his bias in favour of the accused in respect of the receipt,” he said in finding Tengku Adnan, better known as Ku Nan, guilty of receiving the money from Chai in 2016 without a valuable consideration.
Zaini said Tengku Adnan’s lawyer, Tan Hock Chuan, had asked Chai during cross examination whether he had received any letter of acceptance or receipts to prove payment made by Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd.
Chai responded in the positive and took out what he claimed to be an official (Umno) receipt from his wallet.
“This caught the prosecution team by surprise who obviously had no inkling about the receipt,” said Zaini.
On Monday, the 70-year-old Putrajaya MP was sentenced to a year’s jail and fined RM2 million for the offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
Zaini also said the money was collected without the knowledge of Umno headquarters but was kept in a bank account of Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd, a company the accused has an interest in.
The judge said Chai is a long time friend of the accused and has known him since the 80s when he was involved in the logging business in Jerantut, Pahang.
Chai is director of Aset Kayamas, a housing development company and the accused had asked the businessman to participate in an affordable housing project in Kuala Lumpur when he was the Federal Territories minister in 2013 .
Zaini said having scrutinised the receipt, it was found to be crisp and new which “I find as remarkable” considering it was issued in June 2016 and kept in Chai’s wallet.
He said it also did not escape his observation that the receipt was signed by the accused who was then only Umno secretary-general and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Umno liaison chief.
“The fact that only the duplicate copy that was missing in a receipt book was that of the receipt raised a red flag.
“Even more alarming is the fact that the date of the receipt is not in sequence to the receipts issued before and after it.”
The receipt issued before the (Umno) said receipt was dated Nov 12, 2018, and the one after it was dated Nov 16, 2018. The (Umno) receipt, however, was dated June 14, 2016.
The judge said the receipt alone cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof that the RM2 million was a political donation.
He said he found it incredible that Chai did not think it crucial to inform the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officer of the existence of the receipt when he appeared before them for his statement to be taken.
Zaini said he would have expected Chai to inform the MACC about the receipt even assuming it was found after the investigation on him was completed.
“One would have expected him to seize the opportunity to exculpate the accused and not merely keep the receipt,” he said.
The judge said he found it highly questionable that this was not done if he (Chai) had indeed received the receipt from the accused two days after he had given the (RM2 million) cheque.