.png)
KUALA LUMPUR – Former Johor executive council member Datuk Abd Latif Bandi, his son and a real estate consultant have been freed from 37 charges of corruption and money laundering amounting to more than RM30 million.
The Johor Baru sessions court today ruled that Latif, 56; his son Ahmad Fauzan Hatim, 30; and Amir Shariffudin Abd Raub, 49, did not violate the law in their activities involving Bumiputera lots.
Before acquitting and discharging the trio, Judge Kamarudin Kamsun said that the court found the defence had successfully raised reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.
“It was not an easy decision to come to. But the court has looked at all the evidence presented such as witnesses, exhibits as well as the written and oral statements,” he said when reading his judgement, as quoted by The Star.
On June 26, the court postponed to today its decision on the case, with Kamarudin saying that there were still some arguments that needed to be submitted by parties involved.
During the proceedings, the court heard submissions by the prosecution, represented by deputy director I, Legal and Prosecution Division of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, and assisted by deputy public prosecutors Ahmad Akram Gharib and Mahadi Abdul Jumaat.
On June 14, 2017, Latif, Fauzan and Amir were charged with 33 counts of corruption and four counts involving money laundering amounting to RM35.7 million. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
On April 21, 2019, Kamarudin acquitted and discharged the trio of the 37 charges after ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case.
However, on November 7, 2021, the high court ordered the former chairman of the state housing and local government committee and the two others to enter their defence on the 37 charges, following a ruling by judge Datuk Abu Bakar Katar that the sessions court had erred in its decision.
On the corruption charges, the three men were charged under Section 28 (1) (C) of the MACC Act 2009, read together with Section 16 (a) (B) of the same act.
They were also charged under Section 32 (8) (c) and Section 89 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activities Act 2001. – The Vibes, August 7, 2022
