THE High Court today granted a discharge, not amounting to acquittal, to former Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor for his RM1 mil graft case.
Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali made the ruling after the prosecution team decided not to pursue the case against the Umno leader, citing “new developments”.
His trial was supposed to resume today.
Tengku Adnan, popularly known as Ku Nan, was charged in court for allegedly receiving RM1 mil from business tycoon, Tan Eng Boon.
The money was said to be payment to approve an application by Nucleus Properties Sdn Bhd (now known as Paragon City Development Sdn Bhd) to increase the industrial plot ratio of a piece of land on Jalan Semarak.
The offence was alleged to have taken place on Dec 27, 2013, at the CIMB Bank branch located at the Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC).
Subsequently, Tengku Adnan was charged under Section 24(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act. If convicted, the Putrajaya MP could have been jailed up to 20 years and fined five times the gratification amount received.
Previously, the court slapped Tan with a fine worth RM1.5 mil for bribing Tengku Adnan over an alternative charge; abetting Tengku Adnan under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a two-year jail term, a fine or both upon conviction.
MACC needs time to probe “new developments”
Explaining the decision made by the prosecution team, deputy public prosecutor Julia Ibrahim sought the court to issue a “discharge not amounting to acquittal” order against Tengku Adnan as the MACC needed time to conduct further investigations into the case.
“We’re not sure how long MACC needs to probe this ‘new development’. We will decide whether to proceed on the charge after the new issue is resolved,” she said.
However, Tengku Adnan’s attorney, Tan Hock Chuan said his client should have been granted an acquittal for the charges levelled against him.
“He was first charged in the Sessions Court on Nov 15, 2018 and my client has been coming to court for more than two years.
“And the prosecution didn’t tell us how long it would take to investigate this ‘new development’. They should have probed the matter thoroughly before taking my client to court,” he added. – Dec 7, 2020.
