Post by : Rohit Dhiman

The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court has rejected an application for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) filed on behalf of Maju Holdings director Tan Sri Abu Sahid Mohamed and his wife, Puan Sri Noor Azrina Mohd Azmi. The case involves serious allegations of Criminal Breach of Trust and Money Laundering connected to transactions linked to the proposed MEX II highway project. The decision was made after the defence raised concerns about delays in receiving documents that are expected to be important to the preparation of the case. Abu Sahid’s lawyer, Datuk Jasbeer Singh, told the court that his client had already been facing the charges for about a year and that there had been seven mention proceedings during which the prosecution was expected to provide documents. The prosecution.

DNAA Application Rejected as Court Moves Case Towards Trial

The rejection of the DNAA application means that the criminal proceedings against Abu Sahid and his wife will continue. Instead of ending the proceedings at this stage, the court has directed the prosecution and defence to prepare for the next phase of the case. The court ordered the prosecution to prepare a list of witnesses who may be called during the trial. It also instructed the prosecution to provide any remaining necessary documents before the next mention. The next mention has been scheduled for November 20. One of the main purposes of that proceeding will be to determine the trial date. The latest development is therefore significant because the case is moving closer to a full hearing, where the allegations and evidence can be examined through the proper judicial process.

Charges Faced by Abu Sahid

Abu Sahid claimed trial last year after being charged with 17 counts involving Criminal Breach of Trust and Money Laundering. The allegations relate to the proposed MEX II highway project and transactions said to have taken place between May 2016 and October 2019. According to the charges, Abu Sahid faces four counts of Criminal Breach of Trust involving approximately RM313 million. He also faces 13 money laundering charges involving about RM139 million. The CBT allegations have been brought under Section 409 of the Penal Code. The provision concerns criminal breach of trust by individuals in positions such as directors, agents or persons entrusted with property.

Additional Charges Against the Maju Holdings Director

The case against Abu Sahid is not limited to the CBT and money laundering allegations. He also faces seven additional charges involving the alleged misuse of property under Section 403 of the Penal Code. The value involved in these additional allegations is reported to be around RM145 million. These separate allegations add another layer to the ongoing legal proceedings and will form part of the wider criminal case involving the Maju Holdings director. However, all of these allegations remain matters before the courts. The charges themselves do not amount to a finding of guilt, and the accused remains entitled to defend himself throughout the judicial process.

Case Involving Abu Sahid's Wife

Abu Sahid’s wife, Puan Sri Noor Azrina Mohd Azmi, is also facing a separate money laundering charge connected to the same broader investigation. She was charged with allegedly receiving proceeds from unlawful activities amounting to approximately RM67.14 million into her bank account. The prosecution alleges that the money was transferred from an account belonging to Abu Sahid between March and November 2017. Noor Azrina was charged under the relevant money laundering provision and claimed trial to the allegation. Her case is therefore being considered alongside the wider proceedings involving her husband, although the allegations against each accused are distinct.

What Is the MEX II Highway Project?

The case is connected to the proposed MEX II Highway Project, an infrastructure project designed to provide an important road connection between Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur International Airport. The proposed highway covers approximately 18 kilometres. Construction began in 2016, with completion originally expected in December 2019. However, the project was subsequently halted because of financial difficulties. The project has therefore become an important part of the background to the criminal proceedings because some of the allegations against Abu Sahid relate to transactions and financial activities associated with the proposed highway development.

Defence Raises Concern Over Document Delays

A major issue raised during the latest court proceedings was the delivery of documents to the defence. Abu Sahid’s lawyer argued that the prosecution had already been given several opportunities to provide the necessary materials. According to the defence, seven mention proceedings had taken place during the period since the accused was charged. The defence maintained that the availability of evidence is crucial because an accused person needs adequate access to relevant materials to understand the allegations and prepare an effective defence. The lawyer also argued that the number of documents should not be the central consideration. Instead, the important question was whether the prosecution had complied with the requirements governing disclosure of evidence.

This issue led to the request for a DNAA.

The prosecution took a different position. Deputy public prosecutor Nidzuwan Abd Latif told the court that five additional volumes of documents were expected to be submitted. He explained that some of the remaining material had not yet been obtained because the prosecution needed to coordinate with relevant authorities and agencies. The prosecution maintained that the delay did not prevent the case from progressing. It also argued that any documents still outstanding could be delivered before the trial began. This would allow the defence to review the material before the substantive hearing. The prosecution also confirmed its readiness for the High Court to fix a trial date.

Court Orders Further Preparation

After hearing the arguments, Judge Suzana Hussin dismissed the DNAA application. The court decided that a DNAA was not relevant in the circumstances and instead directed the parties to move forward with preparations for trial. The prosecution has been instructed to prepare its witness list and provide any remaining relevant documents by the next mention. The court has fixed November 20 as the next mention date. At that stage, the court is expected to consider the trial schedule and determine when the substantive proceedings should begin.

Read Also: 2026 F1 Singapore Grand Prix: Major Road Closures Announced

Why This Case Is Being Closely Watched

The case has attracted attention because it involves large sums of money, a prominent corporate figure and allegations connected to a major infrastructure project. The amounts mentioned in the charges run into hundreds of millions of ringgit. The allegations also cover several years, making the case potentially document-heavy and legally complex. For the defence, access to evidence and preparation time remain important issues. For the prosecution, the focus is on completing document disclosure and preparing witnesses so that the case can proceed. The latest court decision indicates that the proceedings will continue rather than being discontinued through a DNAA at this stage.

What Happens Next?

The immediate next step will be the November 20 mention. Before that date, the prosecution is expected to provide the remaining documents required by the court and prepare its witness list. The defence will then have the opportunity to review the material as part of its preparation. The court is also expected to address the question of the trial date. The case could therefore enter a more substantive phase once a trial schedule is established. At trial, the prosecution will have to present its evidence and establish the allegations according to the required legal standard, while the defence will have an opportunity to challenge the evidence and present its case. Until the court reaches a final determination, Abu Sahid and Noor Azrina remain entitled to the presumption of innocence.

What is the DNAA decision in the Maju Holdings case?

The DNAA application filed on behalf of Maju Holdings director Abu Sahid Mohamed and his wife has been rejected by the Sessions Court. The court determined that a discharge not amounting to an acquittal was not appropriate in the circumstances. The case will continue, with the next mention scheduled for November 20.

#world news #Global News #Asia News #Indonesia News