KUALA LUMPUR, July 28 (Bernama) — Former Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was charged guilty on all the seven charges against him in the corruption case involving SRC International Sdn Bhd’s funds amounting to RM42 million.
In his judgement, Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali said the prosecution had succeeded in proving all seven charges against him.
Najib, 67, was tried on three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT), three charges of money laundering and one count of abuse of position in relation to the SRC funds.
On two counts of the CBT charges, Najib, as a public servant and agent, namely Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia, and Advisor Emeritus of SRC International Sdn Bhd (SRC), was charged to have misappropriated RM27 million and RM5 million, respectively, of RM4 billion belonging to SRC at AmIslamic Bank Berhad, Ambank Group Building, No 55, Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur, between Dec 24, 2014, and Dec 29, 2014.
On the third count, Najib was charged to have misappropriated RM10 million of RM4 billion belonging to SRC at the same place between Feb 10, 2015, and March 2, 2015.
In passing out the sentences later in the evening, following a break and mitigation by the defence and submission from the prosecution, Judge Mohd Nazlan said he had considered arguments from both sides.
Najib was sentenced to 12 years jail and fined RM210 million for abuse of position offence.
Najib was sentenced to 10 years jail on each of three charges of CBT, sentences to run concurrently.
Najib was sentenced to 10 years jail on each of three offences of money laundering, the sentences to run concurrently.
The Pekan Member of Parliament was charged with committing the offence at the Prime Minister’s Office, Precinct 1, Putrajaya, between Aug 17, 2011, and Feb 8, 2012.
Earlier in the day, after the judge delivered the verdict, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah applied to have the mitigation heard on Monday but ad-hoc Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram objected.
The court had refused the defence application to postpone the mitigation and resumed to hear the mitigation and continue with the sentencing following a break.