Shamsul, 51, and Tei, 37, pleaded not guilty after the charges were read to them separately before judge Suzana Hussin.
Shamsul was accused in the first charge of agreeing to receive RM100,000 from Tei as an inducement to assist firms in which Tei had an interest, to obtain approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah.
The offence was allegedly committed at the parking area of Majestic Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, on Nov 24, 2023.
He was accused in the second charge of receiving furniture and electrical appliances worth RM14,580.03 from Tei as an inducement to assist firms in which the businessman had an interest, to obtain approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah.
The offence was allegedly committed on Jan 31, 2024, at 131, Jalan Medang Serai, Bukit Bandaraya, Kuala Lumpur.
He was also alleged to have received RM40,000 in cash from Tei as an inducement to assist firms in which the businessman had an interest, to obtain approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah.
The offence was allegedly committed at the same location as the second charge, on Jan 29 last year.
He was accused in the fourth charge of receiving furniture and electrical appliances worth RM22,249 from Tei as an inducement to assist firms in which the businessman had an interest, to obtain approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah.
Tei was charged with four counts of giving the bribes to Shamsul.
The charges against Shamsul were framed under Section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 while Tei was charged under Section 17(b) of the same Act.
Tei was represented by Latheefa Koya, Eric Paulsen, Mahajoth Singh, N Surendran and Rajesh Nagarajan while Yusmadi Yusoff, Amer Hamzah Arshad, and Joshua Tay acted for Shamsul.
Deputy public prosecutors Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan and Nurul Qistini Qamarul Abrar handled the prosecution for both cases.
Bail and case mention
Farah Ezlin submitted that the offences under Section 17(a) of the MACC Act are non-bailable, but proposed bail of RM300,000 for Shamsul if the court exercised its discretion to grant it.
However, Amer Hamzah contended that the amount was excessive and urged the court to fix bail at no more than RM50,000, saying his client had cooperated fully with MACC and was eager to clear his name.
“There is not even an iota of evidence to suggest any tampering with witnesses. In fact, there has been no report by any witness of any attempt to interfere,” he added.
The defence also argued that Shamsul’s serious medical conditions should be considered, noting that he has suffered from hypertension since 2003 and diabetes since 2018
Suzana allowed Shamsul bail of RM150,000 with two sureties and ordered for his passport to be impounded until disposal of the case. He was also told to report to the nearest MACC office once a month.
As for Tei, Farah Ezlin proposed bail of RM300,000, arguing that the businessman had failed to cooperate fully with the authorities and that he posed a flight risk.
Latheefa however objected, saying her client had in fact been an informant in the case involving him and Shamsul.
“If you look at the charges, all of the information came from my client. He is the source of first information, and to suggest that he would interfere with the prosecution’s witnesses is unfair,” she said.
Suzana then set bail at RM70,000 with two sureties for Tei.
She also fixed Jan 8 next year for mention of both cases.