The defence in former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s RM42 million civil suit has challenged the basis for the full claim, pointing to bank records showing RM30 million was credited back into SRC International’s own account within 12 days of the December 2014 transactions.
KUALA LUMPUR: If RM30 million of the RM42 million in dispute was subsequently returned to SRC International, why is the company still seeking the full RM42 million from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak?
That is one of the central questions raised by Najib’s counsel Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee in his submissions before High Court judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan in the civil suit brought by SRC International Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary, Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd.
The trial in SRC International Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak (Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. WA-22NCvC-340-05/2021) continues tomorrow.
Farhan’s submissions have put the spotlight on the actual movement of the RM42 million, the amount that ultimately remained with Najib, and the evidence required to establish what he knew at the material time.
RM30m that Went Back to SRC
According to the defence’s reconstruction of the banking records, RM32 million was credited into Najib’s Accounts 880 and 906 on 26 December 2014.
Three days later, RM27 million and RM5 million were paid to PBSB and PPC respectively.
But the defence says the money trail did not end there.
On 7 January 2015, RM30 million was credited back into SRC’s own Account 650.
Farhan’s submission argues that this return is reflected in SRC’s own banking records and completes a portion of the fund flow which the Plaintiffs’ own chart stops short of showing.
The defence has highlighted SRC’s “Timeline 5”, introduced during cross-examination in January, which traced the disputed funds into Najib’s accounts and subsequently showed RM27 million and RM5 million being paid out to PBSB and PPC.
But the chart, the defence says, stops at PBSB and PPC.
The defence’s amended chart adds the subsequent RM30 million payment from PBSB back to SRC, effectively closing the loop.
Why Claim RM42m when RM30m was returned?
This is where the defence’s quantum argument comes in.
Farhan argues that an award of the full RM42 million would effectively require Najib to pay SRC RM30 million which SRC had already received back.
The defence cites the principle against double recovery, arguing that any damages or other monetary relief must take into account the RM30 million already returned to SRC.
The defence therefore says that, even if the Court were to find against Najib on liability — which it does not accept — the full RM42 million cannot stand as the amount recoverable.
Its alternative position is that any award should be limited to the amount that actually remained outstanding, with credit given for the RM30 million returned to SRC. …
The Banking Record Behind the RM30m
The defence also challenges the suggestion that the RM30 million payment from PBSB to SRC cannot be connected to the earlier RM27 million transfer.
It points to PBSB’s bank statement, saying the account held only RM1,956 before the RM27 million arrived on 29 December 2014 and returned to RM1,956 after the RM30 million cheque left on 7 January 2015.
The defence argues this makes it difficult to maintain that the RM30 million came from an unrelated source.
A Civil Trial Must Stand on its Own Evidence
Another major plank of Farhan’s submissions is the distinction between the criminal proceedings against Najib and the present civil action.
The defence argues that Najib’s previous criminal conviction cannot simply be treated as proof that the elements of SRC’s civil claims have been established.
The submission points out that the criminal proceedings involved statutory presumptions and different legal tests, whereas the present action requires SRC to prove the specific elements of its civil causes of action.
The defence notes that the Plaintiffs’ own Reply states that “No equivalent presumption is relied upon in this suit” and that the criminal offence elements are not equivalent to the elements of the civil causes of action.
In other words, Farhan’s argument is that the civil case must be decided on the evidence led in this trial — not by simply importing conclusions from the earlier criminal case.
That distinction is particularly important because SRC’s civil claims include knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, misfeasance in public office and abuse of power.
What Did Najib Actually Know?
The defence has also challenged the evidence concerning Najib’s state of mind.
Farhan argues that the Plaintiffs must establish actual knowledge or conscious dishonesty, rather than relying on hindsight or the proposition that Najib ought to have asked more questions.
The defence submission stresses that suspicion is not knowledge and negligence is not dishonesty, and that the Court must examine the evidence available to Najib at the material time.
The BlackBerry Messages — and Najib’s Absence
The defence has also relied heavily on a 264-page collection of BlackBerry messages involving Jho Low, former SRC CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and AmBank banker Joanna Yu.
One point Farhan’s submission highlights is that there are no messages from Najib in the bundle.
Instead, Najib appears in the conversations as “MNR”, “PM” or “boss” — as the subject of discussions rather than a participant sending messages.
The defence says the chats are important contemporaneous evidence of how the accounts were actually operated by others.
It also points out that the Plaintiffs themselves relied on the same bundle during the trial.
The USD620m Return
The defence has further drawn attention to Najib’s instruction in July 2013 to return USD620 million, which was described in his instruction as the unutilised sum of donations and personal gifts.
The defence says the amount was voluntarily returned long before the RM42 million transactions now under scrutiny and before any allegation against Najib had arisen.
It describes the sum as roughly 48 times the RM42 million at the centre of the present suit. SRC 340 – Knowledge Element Dec…
The argument is that such conduct is relevant to assessing whether Najib could genuinely have believed that monies entering his accounts were legitimate funds rather than money belonging to SRC.
The Question Before the Court
The defence is therefore asking the Court to look beyond the headline figure of RM42 million.
Its case is that the banking evidence shows RM30 million came back to SRC, that the Plaintiffs’ own fund-flow chart does not show the complete trail, and that the evidence of what Najib actually knew must be examined independently of the earlier criminal proceedings.
For Najib, the defence submission is ultimately about three questions: where did the money go, how much actually remained with him, and what did he know at the time?
The Plaintiffs are expected to respond to these arguments when the trial continues tomorrow before Justice Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin. – NMH
Datin Hasnah is the co-founder and CEO of New Malaysia Herald based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With an extensive background in mass communication and journalism, she works on building up New Malaysia Herald and it’s partner sites. A tireless and passionate evangalist, she champions autism studies and support groups.
Datin Hasnah is also the Editor in Chief of New Malaysia Herald.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments