Kota Kinabalu: A prosecution witness confirmed to the Sessions Court Thursday that the former Deputy Director of the Sabah Water Department, who is one of the three accused in their money-laundering trial, was the one who brought him to meet an Infrastructure Development Minister to discuss the contribution scheme.
Teo Chee Kong (pic) agreed to the counsel’s suggestion that it was Lim (the third accused) who took him to meet Datuk Raymond Tan, who was the Infrastructure Development Minister, to discuss the scheme.
Teo said this during cross-examination by counsel Priskila Akwila Sinem who represented the first and second accused, Ag Mohd Tahir Ag Mohd Talib and his wife Fauziah Piut, before Judge Abu Bakar Manat.
Teo, a former Sabah Water Department Deputy Director, also agreed with Priskila that it was not Ag Mohd Tahir who brought him to meet the Minister.
Priskila: Why didn’t Ag Tahir bring you when he was the Director of the Water Department?
Teo: Because Lim was instructed by Ag Mohd Tahir to bring me.
Priskila: Do you have any evidence or document to support your answer?
Teo: According to what Lim Lam Beng said.
Teo disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that their meeting with the Minister was solely on their plan and had nothing to do with Ag Mohd Tahir.
Former Sabah Water Department Director Ag Mohd Tahir, 58, Fauziah, 55, and Lim, 66, were jointly tried on 37 counts of money-laundering charges, involving cash and bank savings amounting to RM61.57 million, as well as unlawful possession of luxury goods.
They had, on Dec 29, 2016, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
To a question, Teo agreed as in his witness statement that he met with ministries’ officers, ministers and contractors.
Priskila: Do you agree, it became half of your role to get contractors for the State Water Department?
Teo: I disagree because I had no authority to control contractors throughout Sabah.
Teo also disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that his statement about Ag Tahir was not true when Ag Tahir instructed him to prepare a standard price for piping and fitting, pipe maintenance and pipe-related works.
The witness disagreed with all the counsel’s suggestions that he had no other supporting evidence to support all his testimony regarding Ag Mohd Tahir and that his statement against the first accused was just baseless accusations.
To a question, Teo agreed with Priskila that the standard price draft had been prepared by Liaw Wee Ming and Yih Kian Kok.
Teo also agreed with the counsel that the said draft was not prepared by Ag Mohd Tahir, to which Teo told the court that he would explain it later during re-examination.
To a question, Teo disagreed with Priskila that he actually had no evidence that Ag Mohd Tahir had given him instructions to prepare the formula for the standard price.
Teo agreed with the counsel’s suggestion that the idea for “inflated rate” came from him and told the court that he would explain later during re-examination.
He also agreed with Priskila that the idea was not from Ag Mohd Tahir and Teo also told the court that he would explain later during re-examination.
He disagreed with a suggestion that the contribution collection money was never handed over to Ag Mohd Tahir and was only kept by him.
Priscilla: I put it to you that you have no other evidence such as documents, receipts or signatures of receipt of money to support your testimony, agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Priskila: Can you show in court proof of receipt of money, documents or receipts that show Ag Mohd Tahir ever received money from you?
Teo: There is evidence in the computer.
Priskila: Can you show any documentary evidence or testimony to support your statement that Ag Mohd Tahir received money and also PJA list from you?
Teo: It is in the computer.
Priskila: Before Ag Tahir was appointed as Director, contributions and collections could be made at the discretion of the Divisional Water Department without having to wait for instructions from the Director, agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Priskila: I put to you that the contributions and collections made from 2005 to 2016 were just a continuation of the previous culture, streamlined and standardised.
Teo: Agree.
When asked to explain why he did not meet Ag Tahir after the meeting on April 6, 2005, Teo said Lim Lam Beng had informed the Director.
Teo added that it was because before the said meeting there was a discussion between the Director, Lim and him in the Director’s room about the scheme and that on April 7, 2005, he met Lim and after that Lim would inform the Director.
Teo disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that he did not meet the Director because the said scheme had nothing to do with him.
Teo, who was the prosecution’s 29th witness, was then temporarily released, pending to be cross-examined by Lim’s counsel who was on sick leave on Thursday, to the next session of trial in March.
In the meantime, two other prosecution witnesses would be called today (Friday) to give their evidence.
Deputy public prosecutors Mahadi Abdul Jumaat, Haresh Prakash Somiah and Zander Lim appeared for the prosecution.
Together with Priskila was Mohamed Fareeez Mohamed Salleh while Lim was represented by counsel Datuk Tan Hock Chuan, Baldev Singh and Kelvin Wong.
Counsel Ram Singh held a watching brief for Teo.
Trial continues.
* Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss.
* Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available.
