Drive电报群( delays decision on Latif corruption charges

Google-Drive电报群是一个Telegram群组分享平台。Google-Drive电报群包括Google-Drive电报群、telegram群组索引、Telegram群组导航、新加坡telegram群组、telegram中文群组、telegram群组(其他)、Telegram 美国 群组、telegram群组爬虫、电报群 科学上网、小飞机 怎么 加 群、tg群等内容。Google-Drive电报群为广大电报用户提供各种电报群组/电报频道/电报机器人导航服务。


THE Sessions Court in Johor Baru today postponed decision on the case against former Johor executive councillor Abd Latif Bandi, his son, and a real estate consultant, who are facing 37 charges of corruption and money laundering over RM35.7 million.

Judge Kamarudin Kamsun, who was scheduled to deliver the verdict today, said there were still some arguments that needed to be submitted by parties involved and he would then rule on August 7.

“I need to listen to those arguments before making a decision. So, I can’t do it today, hence, a new date will be set,” he said.

Lawyer Salehuddin Saidin, represented Latif, 56, and his son, Ahmad Fauzan Hatim, 30, then applied for the court to hear the submission by the defence.

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) Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, and assisted by deputy public prosecutors Ahmad Akram Gharib and Mahadi Abdul Jumaat.

On June 14, 2017, Latif, Ahmad Fauzan and Amir Shariffuddin Abd Raub, 49, were charged with 33 counts of corruption and four counts of money laundering for a total of RM35.7 million, and they pleaded not guilty to all charges.

On April 21, 2019, Kamarudin acquitted and discharged the three of them of the 37 charges after finding the prosecution having failed to prove its case.

However, on November 7, 2021, the High Court ordered the former chairman of the state housing and local government committee and his co-defendants to enter their defence, after it overturned the Sessions Court verdict.

On the corruption charges, the three men are 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 (AMLA) Act 2001. – Bernama, June 26, 2022.