The trial against Ramzidah binti Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Retired Colonel Haji Abdul Rahman and Haji Nabil Daraina bin Pehin Udana Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Haji Awang Badaruddin continued in the High Court today. Jonathan Caplan QC continued his cross examination of the Second Defendant.
The Second Defendant maintained his denial over the large cash deposits made into his joint bank account with the First Defendant. He said that the only logical explanation to why his name and details were quoted in Standard Chartered Bank’s report to Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam, AMBD is that the First Defendant made the deposit but gave his details to the Bank.
Jonathan Caplan QC suggested that the Second Defendant’s details were recorded because it was him who went to the Bank personally and gave his identification card.
The Second Defendant also maintained his denial over using large amounts of 10 thousand dollars notes to pay for the Porsche 911 Carrera GTS, a Jaguar F-type and a Mercedes Benz AMG GTS. His defence is that the First Defendant was the one who paid for those cars. Particularly for the Porsche and Mercedes, he said that he was with the First Defendant at the car dealers but the payment did not come from him.
For a cash deposit of two hundred ninety thousand dollars on 17th March 2016 and payment of forty thousand dollars on 5th November 2014, the Second Defendant stated that he could not have done those transactions because he was at work in Court.
The Second Defendant accepted that his wife has informed the previous Chief Justice regarding the cash gifts she received from the Malaysian national. However, he has never asked the previous Chief Justice to ensure that there were no problems arising from his wife keeping the cash gifts.
Jonathan Caplan QC suggested that the Second Defendant was simply too happy to enjoy the lifestyle which the money provided and he did not want to ask about its source any further. The Second Defendant disagreed with this suggestion but said that he was grateful that the First Defendant had received the monies from the Malaysian national and her late brother. He said that as a judge, he would have known if the monies came from illegal sources.
Simon Farrell QC proceeded to re-examine the Second Defendant. According to the Second Defendant, he had never seen the bank statements produced by the Prosecution until this trial. Over the years, he had only accessed his bank statements online and in those statements, no remarks were recorded regarding the source of funds. Therefore, he did not see that they were recorded as from parents or sales of property.
The Second Defendant also said that he had never made his luxury cars a secret amongst his colleagues because those cars were used to go to work. He further said that he did not know or had any reasonable grounds to suspect that the First Defendant had withdrawn money from Official Receiver’s accounts. In addition, he said that if his wife did make withdrawals from those accounts, she must have had good reasons to do so. The trial will continue again tomorrow, 5th November 2019 at 9 in the morning.
Source: Radio Television Brunei