Tan Sri Musa Haji Aman reserves his rights to challenge the charges

During today’s court proceeding the Prosecution had introduced 16 additional charges against Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Haji Musa bin Haji Aman (Tan Sri Musa Aman). The additional charges are under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities 2001(AMLATFA). The offences purportedly took place in Hong Kong between 2006 to 2008. In essence, these additional charges are related to some of the earlier offences that had been proffered against Tan Sri Musa Aman. These are not new offences.

The prosecution further tendered a certificate under Section 82(2) of AMLATFA (Section 82(2) Certificate) which was certified by a Malaysian Diplomatic Officer in Hong Kong. The said Diplomatic Officer claims in the said Section 82(2) Certificate that offences had been committed in Hong Kong and is of the opinion, that the offences should be tried in Malaysia.

During the court proceeding, the Defence raised concerns about the propriety and accuracy of the said Section 82(2) Certificate, and consequently the charges against Tan Sri Musa. The Defence notified the Sessions Court Judge, Puan Rozina bt Ayob, of the existence of documents which have the effect of exonerating Tan Sri Musa Aman, and at the same time casting doubt on the accuracy of the Section 82(2) Certificate and also the charges. It was pointed out to the Sessions Court Judge that 

i) The Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong (ICAC) had issued a letter dated 22 December 2011 to Tan Sri Musa Aman stating that the ICAC had investigated the matter and agreed that on the basis of facts within their possession, that no further investigated action will be pursued;

ii) In a written reply to a parliamentary question, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz), the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department had informed the Parliament, that the Attorney General’s Chambers had studied and considered the evidence presented by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency and had decided that the elements of corruption could not be proven. In addition, Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz further in his written reply confirmed that the same matter had been investigated by ICAC and it was decided that no further action to be taken.

It is apparent that 2 independent investigative commissions had completed their own investigation separately and came to the same conclusion that no further action should be taken against Tan Sri Musa Aman. As a result of that, one should not be faulted for arguing that the charges against Tan Sri Musa Aman were mala fide.

As such, the Defence informed the Court that they reserve the right to challenge and raise objection to the Section 82(2) Certificate as well as the charges.