SHAH ALAM – Despite being acquitted of 40 corruption charges at the Shah Alam High Court here on Friday, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi could not breathe a sigh of relief yet.
This was because the Umno president’s fate on his 47 criminal breach of trust (CBT), corruption and money laundering charges involving charity foundation Yayasan Akalbudi has yet to be decided by the Kuala Lumpur High Court as the trial was still at the defence stage.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said from a legal point of view, the Bagan Datuk MP’s name has not been cleared since the proceedings of the latter’s Yayasan Akalbudi case was still ongoing.
However, Haniff said Zahid was now 100 per cent freed of the 40 charges in the Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) case after he was acquitted and discharged by the Shah Alam High Court.
"He (Zahid) is still standing trial at the defence stage involving 47 charges involving Yayasan Akalbudi," he told Sinar Premium.
For the CBT charges, Zahid was accused of using the funds to make six payments for his personal credit cards and his personal vehicles’ insurance policies and road tax, transferring funds to a law firm and making a donation to the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) football association.
After three years, the Shah Alam High Court on Friday acquitted and discharged Zahid of all 40 charges of receiving bribes from UKSB to extend the contract of the company as the operator of one-stop centre service in China and the foreign visa system (VLN).
Judge Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa said the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the former deputy prime minister.
Zahid was facing 33 charges of receiving bribes amounting to S$13.56 million from UKSB for himself as the then home minister.
On another seven counts, he was charged with obtaining for himself S$1,150,000, RM3.125 million, 15,000 Swiss francs and US$15,000 from the company with official links to his official duty.
He was alleged to have committed the offence between October 2014 and March 2018.
However, Haniff said the decision did not come as a surprise.
"This is the end of the case, unless the prosecution wants to appeal against the decision at the Court of Appeal.
"I am not surprised by the outcome of the case because the prosecution had failed to prove the payment to the other party," he said.