The Prosecution continued to call witnesses from car dealers in 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 in the High Court.

Two witnesses from the Accounts Department of Jati Transport Sdn Bhd testified in Court today. One of the witnesses confirmed receiving 93 thousand dollars in June 2017 for the deposit payment of a Mercedes AMG GT and subsequently issuing a deposit official receipt to the First Defendant. She then deposited the money received into the company’s Bank Islam Brunei Darussalam, BIBD account.

A second witness from Jati Transport Sdn Bhd informed the Court that she received cash totalling 235 thousand dollars for the sale of another Mercedes AMG GT in October 2015 and issued a car sales receipt to the Second Defendant. Seeing that it was a large amount of cash, she immediately deposited the cash received into the company’s Baiduri Bank account.

For both transactions, an Accounts Assistant of Jati Transport Sdn Bhd submitted a Cash Transaction Reporting, CTR to the Authority Monetary Brunei Darussalam, AMBD as it is a requirement for cash transactions exceeding 15-thousand dollars. Those reports were submitted immediately on the day of receipt of cash.

Evidence of the purchase of cars from Indera Motors Sdn Bhd were heard in Court. A previous salesman of the company gave evidence of selling three vehicles to the Defendants. The first car was a Range Rover Sport 5.0 L Autobiography purchased by the First Defendant for 245 thousand dollars. In September 2013, when the Defendants came to purchase the car, the car was not available yet so only a deposit of 1-thousand dollars was paid. At the end of January 2014, 55-thousand dollars was set off from the remaining balance as the Defendants traded in a Mercedes C180. Another 50-thousand dollars was paid in the form of a cheque and the remaining 139-thousand dollars was paid in cash.

In August 2014, the witness sold a Jaguar F-Type 5.0 L to the First Defendant for 200-thousand dollars. The Defendants traded in an Audi A5 to pay off 35-thousand dollars of the car and the remaining 165-thousand dollars was paid in cash on two separate occasions.

The last car sold by the witness was another Jaguar F-Type 3.0 L to the Second Defendant for 150-thousand dollars in November 2014. A deposit payment was received in October 2014 from the Second Defendant for the amount of 10-thousand dollars by way of cheque. The remaining 148-thousand dollars was paid in cash on two separate occasions.

An employee of the company who was working in the Sales Administration Department and Finance Department recalled receiving 140-thousand dollars on 5th November 2014 as cash payment for a Jaguar F-Type. She explained that both the Defendants were present at the time but could not remember which one of them handed over the cash to her. The cash received were in 4 pieces of 10-thousand dollars notes and the remaining 100 pieces of 1-thousand dollars notes.

The same witness prepared a CTR to AMBD with regards to this transaction and the document showed that the person conducting the transaction was the Second Defendant.

Another employee subsequently deposited the cash received into the company’s BIBD account.

In cross-examination of the witnesses from Indera Motors Sdn Bhd, Simon Farrell QC suggested that the payment of cash for the last car on 5th November 2014 could have been made only by the First Defendant because she came alone to the showroom without the Second Defendant.

Screenshots of Whatsapp messages between the First Defendant and the salesman of Indera Motors was shown in Court. In the messages, the First Defendant made arrangements to surprise the Second Defendant for his birthday on 17th November 2014 with the car. She said she would come to the showroom to make the payment of $140,000 by herself as the Second Defendant was working in Court at the time.

Despite the Second Defendant making a deposit payment for the car, the salesman was not sure if the Second Defendant was aware that he would get the car.

Jonathan Caplan QC on behalf of the Prosecution asked for the Defence to produce the mobile phone from where the Whatsapp messages were taken. In response, Simon Farrell QC informed the Court that they will revert to the Court with this matter.

Simon Farrell QC applied for tomorrow’s hearing to be vacated as the Second Defendant is unwell. He also added that he needed time to discuss with the Defendants their case seeing that the Prosecution’s case is almost coming to a close.

The Honourable Justice Gareth Lugar-Mawson granted the application. The trial will continue again on Monday, 7th October at 9 in the morning.

Source: Radio Television Brunei