1. The first defendant (D1) was Minister of Development in the Government of Brunei Darussalam from 1986 until 28th May 2001. He had also been appointed under the command of His Majesty The Sultan and Yang Di Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam (H.M. The Sultan) as the Istana Project Supervisor (IPS) in the late 1970's. His responsibilities at the material time of the charges included supervision and management of the staff in the Housing Development Department, the Public Works Department (PWD) and the IPS office in the planning, the contracting, and the implementation of public works and public housing programmes in Brunei Darussalam on behalf of the Government.
    
2. The second defendant (D2) was, during the relevant period, the Managing Director and majority shareholder of TED Sendirian Berhad (TED Sdn Bhd), a construction, engineering and land development company carrying on business in Brunei Darussalam. D2 first acquired a stake in TED Sdn Bhd in 1979 and became a Director in the same year. On formal letters signed by D2 in the present case, he described himself as Managing Director of the company.
   
   The charges
    
3. There are 12 charges against each defendant; 3 charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and 9 charges under the Penal Code. The charges against each defendant run in parallel, D1 being charged with accepting the gratification pleaded in the 3 corruption charges and D2 with giving the said gratification; and D1 being charged as principal with accepting the valuable thing particularized in the 9 Penal Code offences and D2 with abetting the offence. Although 24 charges, there are effectively 12 allegations.
    
4. Each of the corruption charges alleges a different gratification accepted by D1 or given by D2 (as the case may be) as an inducement or reward for D1 doing certain specified acts as Minister of Development and IPS. The 11 acts particularized as (a)-(k) in the charges comprise the awarding of what will be referred to as 9 Projects to D2 (b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) and the assisting of D2's application and appeals for a temporary occupation licence of land (TOL land) (a, c). Any one of the specified acts would be sufficient to sustain the charge, if proved to the required standard in conjunction with the other elements of the offence and if done with the requisite intent. Some of the acts averred precede the gratification alleged; some occur during or after the bestowing of the gratification. The nature of the prosecution case is that the conduct impugned was a continuing course of conduct spanning many years in which D2 provided either inducements or rewards for D1 to act in certain ways in relation to D2 and his company.
    
5. The Penal Code offences identify 9 specific valuable things, which the prosecutions allege D1 received as a public servant from D2, with whom they must have both realized he was having business dealings, for no consideration at all or for a consideration which they both knew was inadequate. The mischief at which such an offence is aimed is the allowing of a public servant to place himself in a compromising position by receiving a valuable advantage from someone with whom he has or is likely to have official dealings. Therefore, no corrupt element or motive need be shown or averred in such charges. It is the prosecution's case that by accepting things of substantial value from a. contractor without appropriate consideration, D1 was placing himself, or being placed, in a compromising position as a public servant.

The 9 Projects (or alleged "acts") (in summary)

6. Between 1993 and 1997, the Housing Development Department, the Public Works Department, and the office of IPS awarded nine projects, amongst others, to TED Sdn Bhd, a summary off which is set out in the following table:

7. All of the contracts and variation orders in respect of the various projects, which are the subject-hatter of these proceedings, were signed on behalf of the Government by Dl either in his capacity as Minister of Development alone or as both Minister of Development and IPS. As such, the prosecution will contend that D1 was both an "agent" within the meaning of S.2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap. 131 and a "public servant" within the meaning of S.21 of the Penal Code, Cap. 22. All of the contracts in question were also signed on behalf of TED Sdn Bhd by D2.

TOL land (in summary)

8. the Ministry of Development. 2. In order to facilitate the carrying out of construction work, TED Sdn Bhd first applied in March 1990 for the temporary use of Government land for, amongst other things, the storage of vehicles, equipment and materials used in its construction programmes. Known as TOL land, the procedure for application of TOL land was to apply in writing in the first instance to the District Land Office. Such applications, if they concerned industrial TOL land, would be forwarded to the Land Office. The practice was that the Land Office would screen the application, ascertain from the Town and Country Planning Department the availability of suitable land, and if eligible and otherwise in order, forward the application to the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Development for a decision. The Permanent Secretary would either make a decision himself or, if necessary, call a TOL Committee which comprised officers from the Land Office, the Town and Country Planning Office and
    
9.  The prosecution's case is that on three occasions between 1990-1994, D1 intervened to assist TED Sdn Bhd during its various applications for TOL land and appeals therefrom, culminating in June 1994 when, after a letter from D2 directly to D1 in April of that year, he instructed that TED Sdn Bhd's appeal from 1.3 acres to 5 acres of TOL land be approved

The alleged gratifications (in summary)

10. The prosecutions allege that between 1992 and 2001, D1 and D2 entered into a number of personal dealings between themselves. They were in summary and in sequence:

1.  the building of a house in 1992/1993 by D2 for D1 on D1's land at Lot 30823 Kg. Pengkalan Gadong, and the subsequent renting of that house to D2 for B$5,000.00 per month. The rental continued at the same rate from September 1993 when the house was first occupied by D2 up to the date Dl left office. The prosecution will rely on the lack of any credible documentary evidence by way of invoice, receipt, accounting entry in TED Sdn Bhd's accounts, or bank document or account to show that D1 ever paid anything in relation to the building of the house on his own land;
    
2. The purchase in late 1993 of Lot 33999 at Kg. Katok Mukim Gadong in D1's name and the subsequent building of 24 houses by D2, of which D1 was to receive 8 houses as his share of the development and D2, the remaining 16. The prosecution will show that D1 in fact paid nothing towards the purchase and development of the land. All of the money came either from D2 personally or from bank loans booked in D1 's name but arranged and serviced entirely by D2, who further entered into three consecutive personal guarantees with two banks in respect of the loans;
    
3.  the acquisition in 1995 by Dl, on behalf of his daughter, of a shophouse unit at Block D of Lot 701 at Kg. Kiarong worth approximately B$930,000.00 from D2, who was both developer and owner of the shophouse in question. The prosecution contend that Dl paid nothing for the property until after April 1999, when a loan with a bank apparently arranged in September 1996 was finally drawn down, notwithstanding that the shophouse had been occupied since May 1996 and rent of some B$250,000.00 received from its tenant into Dl's daughter's bank account. The prosecution will suggest that the loan was drawn down, more than 2'/2 years after it was apparently arranged and nearly 3 years after the premises were occupied and producing an income, following an investigation into his conduct as Minister of Development by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) which commenced at the end of 1998 in relation to, amongst other projects, the contract for Drainage and Roadworks at Lot 701, Kg. Kiarong.

11.  In short, the prosecution case is that D1 was to receive 10 properties (one domestic and nine investments) effectively free. It is alleged that the benefits derived from these personal dealings were given to D1 in relation to acts either done or to be done by him on behalf of the Government as Minister of Development and IPS in connection with projects undertaken by D2 as a contractor. As such, it is the prosecution case that they amount to gratifications corruptly given to and received by D1 as agent either as an inducement or a reward for D1 doing or having done acts in relation to his principal's affairs, within the meaning of S.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further alleged that, in the process of receiving such benefits, D1 was accepting, and. D2 was abetting his acceptance, several valuable things without consideration or with inadequate consideration, when both defendants knew D2 was concerned or was likely to be concerned with business transacted by D1 in his capacity as a public servant.

The tender process for the 9 Projects

12. As a contractor, TED Sdn Bhd was one of a number of companies competing for Government contracts in Brunei Darussalam. Public or open tenders would normally have been invited from such companies, in accordance with provisions set out in the Financial Regulations 1983, and submitted to the Tenders Board. In relation to the 9 projects in question, however, the project was awarded, not by public or open tender, but by selective or negotiated tender; in other words, D1 would authorise tenders to be called from a selected number of named companies or instruct a quotation to be negotiated directly with one particular company. None of these tenders went before the Tenders Board.
     
13. In the implementation of public works projects, the Project Management Teams of the Housing Department, PWD and the IPS office were responsible for drawing up contract requirements and technical specifications. Tenders, whether open, selective or negotiated, would be evaluated in accordance with a predetermined set of criteria which included the estimate of price, construction period, quality checking, and conformity with specifications set out in the tender documents, prepared by the Project Management Team. Normally, if the tender was open or selective, the three lowest conforming tenderers would be short-listed for interview by the Project Management Team, which would include the Chief Quantity Surveyor, the Project Quantity Surveyor and the Project Architect, for the purpose of seeking clarification. The Chief Quantity Surveyor was responsible for compiling a tender evaluation report with a recommendation for award for submission to Dl, who would then make the decision as to whom the contract would be given. Only Project 6 was handled in accordance with this procedure, on a selective tender basis.
     
14. As for Projects 2 and 3, the prosecution will adduce evidence that D1 gave instructions for the tender to be negotiated directly with TED Sdn Bhd alone, while Project 1 was directed to be negotiated initially with TED Sdn Bhd alone as a Variation Order, with a quotation being obtained six weeks later from another company. Projects 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 were, on the instructions of D1, treated as Variation Orders to Project 2, to be done by TED Sdn Bhd, notwithstanding that some of the works involved in the 5 Variation Orders were unconnected with the original project.
     
15. It is intended, in presenting in a coherent way the full course of conduct spanning the years from 1990 until Dl left office in 2001, to outline in brief the evidence of the acts allegedly done by Dl and the gratifications allegedly accepted. The evidence to be presented before the Court will deal, firstly, with the 9 Projects and the TOL land applications identified in the first 3 charges and, secondly, with the alleged gratifications. Accordingly, in opening the case we shall follow the same order.
     
16. In understanding the complete picture, certain relevant dates and events which will be the subject of evidence will be relied upon by the prosecution:

1. On 23rd July 1998, D1 was first approached by Dato Paduka Hj Adrian Bin Hj Hanafiah, the Acting Deputy Director of the ACB, and requested to provide the files connected with certain IPS projects, which were under investigation by the ACB. Pursuant to that meeting, a letter was furnished dated 12th November 1998 to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Development. On 30th December 1998, the files were sent to the ACB by or through the Permanent Secretary. (As earlier indicated, one of those files related to Project 2).
2. On 7th June 1999, D2 was first approached by officers of the ACB for interview under 5.22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A record of interview commenced on 10th June 1999 and concluded after several further interviews on 17th September 2001.
3. On 3rd July 1999, H.M. The Sultan wrote to D1. (The production of this letter is objected to and we would not at this stage refer to its contents). D I responded to H.M. The Sultan by letter dated 31st July 1999.
4.  On 7th February 2000, H.M. The Sultan wrote again to D1 (Again, we would not at this stage refer to its contents).
5. On 1st May 2001, Hj Abdullah Bin Abd Rahman, a Senior Assistant Director at ACB led a team of officers to search the residence and office of D1.
6. D1  was first approached by officers of the ACB for interview under S.22 on 2nd May 2001. An interview commenced on 8th May 2001, three weeks before D1 left office, and concluded after several further interviews on 12th July 2001.
7. D1 and D2 were arrested and charged on 13th May 2004.

Project I (Kg. Tungku Phase III Housing Package 3) (particular (b))
(The witnesses who deal specifically with Project 1 are:

• Hj Mohd Jumin Bin Hj Marsal
• Lien Sui Kau, Alice)

17. The prosecution will show that on 8th May 1993, Alice Lim Sui Kau (Alice Lim), an Executive Engineer with PWD, was instructed by D1 to obtain a direct quotation from TED Sdn Bhd for the building of 22 Type C and 35 Type E houses in respect of Kg. Tungku Phase III Housing Package 3; and 48 Type C houses in respect of Package 4. On 12th May, on behalf of TED Sdn Bhd, D2 returned two quotations in respect of each Package. On 22nd May 1993, a meeting between Hj Mohd. Jumin Bin Hj Marsal (Hj Jumin), the Acting Director of Development of PWD, Lim Sui Kau, Alice (Alice Lim), a project engineer and D1 took place at which the question of tendering for the project was discussed. A further company, M/S Galfar Pembinnan Dan Perusahaan Sdn Bhd (Galfar) was subsequently invited on 22nd June to tender for the same two Packages.
     
18. On 1st July 1993, Alice Lim reported to D1 the results of the two companies' quotations, whereupon she was instructed to obtain revised quotations from TED Sdn Bhd only. On the same day, D2 furnished two revised quotations in respect of each Package. Alice Lim and Hj Jumin made a written recommendation the same day to D1 for an open tender to be held. That recommendation was reiterated on 26th July 1993 through the Director General of PWD.
     
19. Since no decision had been made after several months, both TED Sdn Bhd and Galfar were requested by PWD to extend the validity of their quotations. They both did so on 2nd November 1993. By 25th November 1993, Hj Jurnin wrote again to D1 for instructions on the matter, and again proposed an open tender to be held. A decision was subsequently made by D1 giving Package 3 to TED Sdn Bhd and Package 4 to Galfar. It is the prosecution's case that, despite repeated recommendations from PWD to hold an open tender for both Packages, it was D1's intention from the outset that TED Sdn Bhd would be given at least one Package.

(Project 3 (Kg. Lambak Kiri, Landless Citizens Scheme) (particular (e))
(The witnesses who dealt with Project 1 also deal with Project 3)

20. The prosecutions allege that instruction was given by D1 in June 1995 to obtain a quotation (a negotiated tender) for the building of 27 houses and accompanying infrastructure from TED Sdn Bhd alone. D2 submitted a quotation on 30th June 1995 on behalf of TED Sdn Bhd, which was forwarded to Dl by Hj Jumin on 13th July together with a Letter of Acceptance to be signed by D1. It is the prosecution case that.it was D1's decision from the outset to give this sizeable contract to D2's company, which was the only company ever asked to provide a quotation.

Project 2 (Drainage and Roadworks for Lot 701 Kg. Kiarong ) (particudar (d))
(The witnesses who deal with Project 2 are:

• Yee Kok On
• Hj Rashid Bin Hj Abd Rahman)

21. In 1994/1995 D2 was the developer of a private project to develop four private blocks of shophouses at Lot 701 Kg. Kiarong. Pursuant to a development agreement dated 5th February 1994 signed between the owner of the land and D2 and his partner, D2 would build four blocks of shophouses at his own expense, as a result of which he would be entitled to retain two blocks for his own use and disposal. In early 1995, D1 instructed Lim Lam Keong, the Director of Roads to obtain a quotation specifically from TED Sdn Bhd for the Drainage and Roadworks adjacent to the private development at Lot 701. PWD had estimated the works at B$1,800,000.00. The quotation was sought on 2nd February 1995 through Y ee Kok On, an Engineer in the Department of Roads, PWD. On 11th February 1995, D2 signed TED Sdn Bhd's quotation, which due to an error was subsequently revised on 21st February 1995 to B$1,884,925.00. Since the quotation was above PWD's original estimate by 4.7%, the quotation was forwarded to D1 for consideration. TED Sdn Bhd was awarded the contract on Dl's instructions.
     
22.  The prosecutions allege that TED Sdn Bhd was specifically singled out for and awarded this project involving public roads. In the event, the project was to spawn 5 Variation Orders to a total value of B$12,066,651.90, more than 6 times the value of the original project (B$1,884,925.00).

Variation Orders (in general)

23. The rules governing Variation Orders (Additional Expenses) circulated within the Ministry by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Development and dated 31st January 1984 will be produced. The rules were issued by decree of H.M. The Sultan and state:

"The Honourable Minister of Development is entrusted to be responsible for the approval of applications not exceeding $150,000.00. Meanwhile, the Director of Public Works is entrusted to approve variation orders not exceeding $25,000.00 only. Variation order amounting to more than $150,000.00 is subject to the consent of His Majesty The Sultan."

All of the Variation Orders in question, save Variation Order No. 4 (Project 8), exceeded B$150,000.00, three of them substantially, and all were approved by Dl. The prosecution will show that quotations were asked directly from a single contractor and approved by way of Variation Order for a large scale of road works carried out by PWD.

Project 4 (Variation Order No.1) (particular (f))
(The witnesses who deal with Project 4 are:

• Yee Kok On
• Hj Rashid Bin Hj Abd Rahman)

24. 1. During the course of construction of the original contract (Project 2), a stretch of soft area of ground was encountered. Yee Kok On was instructed to approach TED Sdn Bhd for a quotation. On 28th June 1995, D2 provided a quotation for the works (B$224,909.18). On 19th September 1995, the Director of Roads submitted a Form for Permission to Issue Variation Order No. 1 for D1's consideration and approval. The Variation Order was approved, taking the revised Contract Sum to B$2,109,834.18.

Project 5 (Variation Order No. 2) (particular (g))
(The same witnesses as to Project 4 deal with Project 5)

25. 2. As a result of complaints of traffic congestion in the area of Lot 701, D1 instructed the Director of Roads to draw up a plan to ease the problem. The plan involved the widening of Jalan Dato Ratna between Jalan Pasar Gadong and the T-junction at Jalan Kiarong with improvements to Jalan Kiarong. The Director of Roads was instructed by D1 to obtain a quotation for the works from TED Sdn Bhd. On 5th October 1995, D2 submitted a quotation and, on 13th October, a revised quotation for the works (B$5,418,413.00), with a contract completion period of 9 months. On 16th October 1995, the Director of Roads submitted a Form for Permission to Issue Variation Order No. 2 for D1's consideration and approval. D1 approved the Variation Order the same day, taking the revised Contract Sum to B$7,528,247.18.

Project 6 (Bangunan Mufti Kerajaan dan Dewan Sultan Haji Omar Ali Saifuddien `Earthworks' Project) (particular (h))
(The witnesses who deal with Project 6 are:

• •Hj Zulkipli Bin Hj Abd Hamid
• Hjh Hajijah Awg Hj Salleh
• Hamiddon Bin Hj Mohd Said
• Hj A bd Wahab Bin Hj Awang Tuah)

26.  During the currency of the works connected with Project 2, tenders were invited by PWD from 13 selected construction companies (selective tender) in connection with the Earthworks Project (Project 6). One of those companies was TED Sdn Bhd. The completion period for the works in question was stipulated in the tender documents as 8 months.
     
27. On 9th September 1995, D2 submitted a tender on behalf of TED Sdn Bhd. After all tenders had been received, D1 invited recommendations in relation to the 13 tenders from the Project Management Team, headed by Hj Zulkipli Bin IIj Abd Hamid (Hj Zulkipli), the Chief Quantity Surveyor, PWD.
     
28. ED Sdn Bhd was found not to conform with the tender requirements and to have an arithmetical error, resulting in an under-pricing of its tender by some B$1,125,000.00. Accordingly, TED Sdn Bhd's tender was considered unacceptable by the Project Management Team. However, since it was the lowest tenderer, TED Sdn Bhd was invited, along with the three lowest tenderers, to a post-tender interview on 18th September 1995.
     
29. Subsequent to that interview, on 19th September 1995, D2 formally withdrew TED Sdn Bhd's tender. The prosecution case is that D1 then instructed that a meeting should be held by members of the Project Management Team with TED Sdn Bhd so that it could reconsider its request to withdraw. A meeting was accordingly held, as a result of which D2 reinstated his company's tender, confirming that the tender price would remain the same despite the arithmetical error, but that the completion period for the works would be 12 months.
     
30.  On 2nd October 1995, Hj Zulkipli sent a Tender Analysis Report to D1 with a recommendation that the project should be given to a company called Tang Sun Lee Sdn Bhd, which had complied fully with the tender requirements, which was regarded as the best in terms of quality, and which was able to do the works with an 8-month completion period. However, D1 instructed that the works be given to TED Sdn Bhd, and subsequently signed the contract with D2 on 2nd December 1995.
     
31. The prosecutions allege that the process by which TED Sdn Bhd was selected for this project shows that D1 had from an early stage intended that the project should go to D2's company.

Project 7 (Variation Order No. 3) (particular (i))
(The same witnesses as to Projects 4, 5 deal with Project 7)

32. During the works in connection with Variation Order No.2 it was decided that Jalan Data Ratna should be widened up to the junction with Jalan Babu Raja. In addition, D1 instructed that the construction of a car-park at Lot 4520, unconnected with the road widening programme, be included in a new Variation Order No.3. TED Sdn Bhd was duly invited to give a quotation, which it provided on 8th July 1996, with a revision on 23rd July 1996 (B$5,479,889.00). On the same day, a Form for Permission to Issue Variation Order No. 3 was forwarded for D1's consideration and approval. The Variation Order was approved taking the revised contract sum (for the original Project 2) to B$13,101,722.18.

Project 8 (Variation Order No. 4) (particular (I))
(The same witnesses as to Projects 4, 5, 7 deal with Project 8)

33. In mid-1996, TED Sdn Bhd was asked to submit a quotation for part of works to improve the water supply to Duli Pengirian Muda Al-Muhtadee Billah College. On 30th July 1996, D2 submitted TED Sdn Bhd's quotation to Yee Kok On, which was further revised by letter of 13th August 1996 (B$134,116.00). After evaluation by the Senior Water Engineer, Dl's approval was sought. On 25th January 1997, the Director of Roads sought retrospective approval for the works, which had already been completed in December 1996. D1 subsequently gave his approval, thus taking the revised contract sum to B$13,235,838.18.

Project 9 (Variation Order No.5) (particular (k))
(The same witnesses as to Projects 4, 5, 7, 8 deal with Project 9)

34. Due to regular flooding of a section of Jalan Dato Ratna, TED Sdn Bhd was asked to give a quotation for the construction of a triple box culvert and miscellaneous works in the vicinity of the road. D2 signed TED Sdn Bhd's quotation on 9th September 1996 (B$499,141.50) and, after evaluation, a memorandum was sent to D1 by the Director of Roads seeking approval for the works; which approval D1 gave. The work and quotation was subsequently revised (B$715,738.68) and on 29t}' February 1997, a letter explaining the revision together with a Form for Permission to Issue Variation Order No. 5 and the Variation Order itself sent to D1 for approval. D1 subsequently approved the Variation Order, taking the revised contract sum to B$13,951,576.86.

TOL land (particular (a) and (c))
(The witnesses who deal with this matter are:

• Pg Salleh Bin Pg Hj Apong Hj Ahmad Bin Udin
• Khasnah Binti Hj Panjang
•  Pg Hj Tejudin Bin Pg Puteh
• Dato Seri Laila Jassa Hj Mohd Salleh Bin Hj Hidup
•  Hj Awg Jokeple Bin Hj Awg Mohd Arshad
•  Hj Mohd Gazalin Pgh Hj Mokti
•  Siti Hafsah Binti Hj Abd Ham id
• Dk Rosimah Pg Mohd)

35. The prosecution will allege that D1 on three occasions made representations on behalf of D2's company, by instructing officers from the Land Office to approve the TOL land applications of TED Sdn Bhd. The history of the matter which the prosecution will place before the Court will show that TED Sdn Bhd's applications for TOL land had been twice refused by the Land Office in 1990 and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Development in 1991 respectively. D1 first intervened on 2nd July 1991 on TED Sdn Bhd's behalf, as a result of which the company was awarded 1.3 acres of TOL land. TED Sdn Bhd appealed at the end of 1991/early 1992 for an increase to 2.45 acres of TOL land. The matter was discussed with D1 who gave his approval for further land to be given to TED Sdn Bhd up to 2.45 acres, subject to availability. The prosecution says this was Dl's second intervention on TED Sdn Bhd's behalf without recourse to the TOL Committee.

36. 1. TED Sdn Bhd appealed again in 1993 for 5 acres of TOL land to the Commissioner of Land. On 18th April 1994, D2 wrote directly to Dl about the matter. The prosecution will show that on this occasion D1 summoned a meeting with officers from the Ministry of Development, Town and Country Planning and the Land Office at which, on 28' June 1994, he gave an instruction that TED Sdn Bhd be granted 5 acres of TOL land. This was the third occasion the prosecution suggests that D1 intervened in the matter of TOL land application on behalf of D2's company.

The alleged gratifications

37. We turn now to the gratifications, which the prosecutions allege were given by D2 and accepted by D1. They have been earlier summarized. The prosecution will strictly prove a large number of bank documents in relation to the alleged gratifications, in particular concerning Lot 33999. Accordingly,
    a considerable volume of live banking evidence will be called as proof of the prosecution case.

(i) Lot 30823
(The witnesses who will give evidence on this matter are:

• Chan Eng Pheng Yvonne
• Yong Lee Mui Shirley
• Lim Vui Lin Carol
• Christina Lee Soo Yoke)

38. It is the prosecution case that in 1992 D1 and D2 agreed that D2 would build a house for D1 on Dl's land at Lot 30823 and subsequently rent it from him at B$5,000 per month. The prosecution says that there is no credible documentary or accounting evidence to show that D1 contributed any money at all to D2 or TED Sdn Bhd for the building of the house on Lot 30823. (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 4).
     
39. The house in question was completed in mid-1993 and D2 began paying rent to DI as from 1st September 1993. Christina Lee Soo Yoke, a book-keeper at TED Sdn Bhd will give evidence that she prepared a standing instruction on 26th November 1993 from D2's account with HSBC to D1's account with HSBC in the sum of B$5,000.00 per month in respect of the rental of "Lot 30822" (sic) to take effect on 1st January 1994, together with a credit advice for 4 months rental between September and December 1993 in the sum of B$20,000.00 in favour of D1's account. During the period averred in Charge 1, D2 paid the sum of B$330,000 into Dl's account as rental. That rental continued without adjustment until D1 left office in May 2001.

(ii) Lot 33999
(The witnesses who will give evidence on the matter are:

• HJ Mohd Cazalin Pgh Hj Mokti
• Hj Mohamat Hotta Bin Hj Zainuddin
• Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Nor
• Kelly Yap Yong Ching
• Riza Mohd Khairi
• Paul Thien Vui Po
• Chan Eng Pheng Yvonne
• Cynthia Chong Choon Yen
• Teo Pei Jiuan
• Chan Kah Seng
• Yong Lee Mid Shirley
• Lirn Vui Lin Carol
• Christina Lee Soo Yoke
• Leong Poh Lin
•  Monica Chai)

40. The prosecution case is that some time in 1993, D1 and D2 agreed on a plan to develop Lot 33999 by building a number of houses for sale or investment. The land would be bought in Dl's name but D2 would construct the houses. The prosecution says that the arrangement between D1 and D2 was that all of the construction and other costs associated with the purchase and development of the lot would be borne by D1. Of the 24 houses to be built, the plan was that Dl would retain 8 houses while D2 would have 16 houses as their respective shares, to dispose of as they wished. In effect, DI would not be called on to provide any financing at all. (These matters also form the subject-matter of Charges 5 and 6).
     
41. On 6th November 1993, a sale and purchase agreement in respect of lot 33999 was signed between eight vendors of the land and D1 as purchaser. The total price agreed for the land was B$1,500,000.00, of which a B$150,000.00 deposit was payable upon receipt of approval from H.M. The Sultan for transfer of the property.
     
42. On 26th November 1993 Messrs Choo, Chan & Wong D2's lawyers, acknowledged receipt of a cheque in the sum of B$150,000.00 as deposit for the purchase price. Although the receipt was made out to D1, the prosecution will adduce evidence that the money in fact came from an HSBC cheque drawn on D2's account. (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 7).
     
43. On 10th March 1993 D1 was offered and accepted a term loan by Maybank in the sum of B$1,350,000.00 to part finance the purchase of Lot 33999. On the same day, the money was credited to D1's May bank account and a cheque drawn to pay the vendors for the balance of the purchase price. The land was formally registered in the Land Register in Dl's name on 2nd April 1994. It is the prosecution's case that D2 signed a letter of personal guarantee as security for the loan taken out in DI's name. (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 8).
     
44. On 10th May 1994, the architect retained for the development made an application for sub-division of Lot 33999 into smaller lots.
     
45. After being approached in early 1995, Paul Thien Vui Po (Paul Thien), a Senior Manager at Baiduri Bank made a written offer on 28th February 1995 of an overdraft facility to Dl in the sum of B$5,000,000.00. In accepting the facility, D2 entered into a personal guarantee in the sum of B$3,333,333.00 (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 9). The prosecution will further rely as evidence of the defendants' intentions on two assignments of sales proceeds relating to the development at Lot 33999, by which Dl confirmed to the bank his share of 8 houses and D2, his share of 16. Having accepted the facility, Baiduri Bank discharged Dl's overdraft with Maybank.
     
46. Upon completion of the development, D1 and D2 converted the whole of the overdraft outstanding on the project of B$3,161,000.00 to a Term Loan of 5 years. Pursuant to a letter from Baiduri Bank from Paul Thien of 5th March 1999, D2 signed a personal guarantee in the sum of B$3,16 1,000.00. (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 10).
     
47. Furthermore, the prosecution will adduce banking evidence to show that between November 1998 through to the time D1 left office, all of the loan payments to Baiduri Bank were serviced by D2. (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 11).

(iii) The shop-house (unit 9), Block D, Lot 701, Kg. Kiarong
(The witnesses who will give evidence on this matter are:

• Paul Thien Vui Po
• Chan Eng Pheng Yvonne
• Low Ah Hai
• Monica Chai)

48. As indicated earlier, D2 and his partner, Chang Chai Woon were the developers of a private commercial development of shophouses (Blocks A, B, C, and D), of which they were entitled under the agreement with the owner to Blocks C and D as effectively leasehold owners.
     
49. It is the prosecution case that D1 acquired unit 9, Block D for his daughter, Dayanku Suzylawati Pg. Dato Dr. Ismail (Dayanku Suzylawati). On 18th April 1995, D2 and his partner signed a Sale and Purchase Agreement for the sale of the unit to Dayanku Suzylawati in the sum of B$930,000.00.
     
50. On 14th March 1996, a letter was sent to Baiduri Bank requesting the grant of banking facilities to Dayanku Suzylawati in the amount of B$630,000.00. A facility was offered on 12th June 1996, which was superseded by an offer of a Term Loan of B$630,000 on 13th September 1996. The loan was not drawn down until 21st April 1999 and the payment of B$630,000.00 not transferred to D2 until 29th April 1999.
     
51. On 15th May 1996, Low Ah Hai, who had earlier bought an adjacent unit in Block D from D2 on 17th April 1995, began renting unit 9. The prosecution allege that not only had D1 paid D2 nothing for the property for a period of nearly 3 years while the property was producing income, but that the eventual draw down of B$630,000.00 was prompted by the ACB investigation in late 1998. In the circumstances, the prosecution have averred this alleged gratification in Charge 3 as a forbearance to pay the full purchase price between the date of purchase (18th April 1995) and the date the drawn down loan was transferred to D2 (29th April 1999). (This matter also forms the subject-matter of Charge 12).

Other evidential matters

52. 1. The prosecution will seek to adduce statements made by each defendant under S.22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It will also seek to produce the two letters referred to from H.M. The Sultan, as well as Dl's reply. It is understood that all of this evidence will be subject to argument as to admissibility.
     
53. 2. A number of facts have been agreed and incorporated into an Agreed Summary of Facts signed by the parties dated 16th February 2005.

16th February 2005

                                                                                                                  Andrew Macrae S.C.