KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — Construction company Mamfor Sdn Bhd’s donations totalling RM19.5 million to political party Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia in 2021 and 2022 were unusual because of the way the payments were made, the High Court heard today in Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s corruption and money laundering trial.

Bank Muamalat’s PKNS Shah Alam assistant branch manager Norazeanti Miswan said it would not be unusual for an individual, company or institution to make political donations.

But it was unusual in this case, as Bank Muamalat’s customer Mamfor had issued multiple cheques on the same day to the same recipient Bersatu, she said. 

“For example, in November 2021, the customer applied for more than one banker’s cheque at one time and paid to the same recipient. Per cheque RM500,000, but in one day more than two or three pieces [of cheques], at one time.

“That’s what I meant, that it appeared frequent and unusual, out of the ordinary. Because normally, customers do not apply for banker’s cheques to be paid to the same recipient through several transactions on the same day,” she said while testifying as the ninth prosecution witness in Muhyiddin’s trial.

Based on the bank’s records, Norazeanti confirmed that Mamfor did not make any donations to other political parties even from 2023 to 2025.

Earlier today, she also confirmed that Mamfor did not make donations to Umno, PAS or DAP from 2020 until the company closed its Bank Muamalat account in 2025, based on bank records.

Earlier today, when asked by Muhyiddin’s lead defence lawyer Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad, Norazeanti agreed that an “unusual” or “questionable” transaction does not necessarily mean that it is an “unlawful” transaction.

Previously, Norazeanti testified that her branch had flagged all Mamfor’s 29 cheques totalling RM19.5 million to the bank headquarters as unusual due to the frequent and large sums involved, adding that this was done through “questionable activity reports” — otherwise known as the bank’s internal suspicious transaction reports (STR). 

She agreed that a transaction cannot be assumed to be “unlawful” just because it was reported internally by her bank branch to Bank Muamalat’s headquarters as a “questionable” transaction. 

Besides the donations to Bersatu, she said her bank branch had also filed internal STRs with the bank headquarters on other Mamfor transactions to other recipients.

Norazeanti agreed with Amer that construction is a legitimate business and that it would mean Mamfor had obtained its funds through legitimate activities, also agreeing that the company is entitled to decide how to spend its money.

She agreed with Amer that it would be up to Mamfor to decide to give donations, and that giving donations is generally not an offence.

She agreed that Bank Muamalat could decide not to carry out any transactions for its customers if false information had been provided or if there was anything unlawful, also confirming that the bank had carried out Mamfor’s instructions to send money as donations to Bersatu.

For the RM19.5 million payments to Bersatu, Mamfor had declared them in banking forms as a “donation” or “political donation” to the party.

Norazeanti agreed that the authorities have not taken action against Mamfor for making false declarations.

Norazeanti agreed with Amer that the party Bersatu and its president Muhyiddin are two separate entities, and that a donation to Bersatu does not necessarily mean a donation to Muhyiddin.

Among other things, she confirmed that Mamfor’s cheques were made out to Bersatu instead of Muhyiddin, and that these cheques cannot be described as donations to Muhyiddin.

She confirmed that Mamfor had brought along copies of the company’s letters to Bersatu, when it went to the bank to apply for the banker’s cheques to Bersatu.

Amer showed her these letters, which she agreed were supporting documents and cover letters for the cheques to Bersatu.

Mamfor had addressed those letters to Bersatu’s treasurer, with the letter stating “Sumbangan untuk Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia” (Donation for Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia).

She confirmed that Mamfor’s cheques to Bersatu could only go into the political party’s bank account, as the banks would not process the cheques to be deposited into other recipients’ accounts.

She agreed that the banking system would clearly record all transactions made by cheques and there would be no way for these transactions to be hidden.

She agreed that there are other methods to give donations such as through cash, further agreeing that there is no system to mandatorily record cash donations, unlike donations made through banks.

She agreed that donations through the banking process are more transparent than cash donations, further agreeing that the remittance forms, banker’s cheques and supporting letters showed that Mamfor’s donations to Bersatu were transparent.

She agreed with Amer that Bank Muamalat’s headquarters did not instruct for any of the cheques or payments for the RM19.5 million donations to be withdrawn or to be stopped.

In early 2025, Bank Muamalat had issued a notice for account closure to Mamfor, with the written reason stated as the “contractual agreement between bank and customer in terms of terms and conditions” had not been met, she said.

She confirmed the notice did not mention Mamfor’s donations to Bersatu as a reason for the account closure.

She was unable to confirm if this account closure notice was related to Mamfor’s 2021 and 2022 transactions to Bersatu, saying that only Bank Muamalat’s headquarters would know the reason.

Later when asked by deputy public prosecutor Noralis Mat, Norazeanti explained why she had said Mamfor could choose what to do with the money in its account, saying that bank customers could carry out transactions while bank officers would have the responsibility to report any suspicious transactions.

Asked to elaborate on her agreement that “unusual” transactions are not necessarily “unlawful”, Norazeanti explained that “unusual” transactions would be when it is not for usual situations where a customer pays to suppliers related to the customer’s nature of business.

As for “unlawful”, she said she understood it to mean matters that are not legitimate.

As for why a banker’s cheque is more transparent than a local cheque, she said this is because a customer would need to physically come to a bank branch to apply for banker’s cheques, while the bank would only know when a customer issues a local cheque as the chequebook is kept by the customer. 

Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) assistant registrar Harshini Radhakrishnan, who testified today as the 10th prosecution witness, confirmed SSM’s records on four companies, namely Mamfor, Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Sutracom Sdn Bhd, and KCJ Engineering Sdn Bhd.

In this trial, Muhyiddin is facing seven charges, namely four counts of alleged power abuse to obtain RM225.3m bribes for Bersatu (from Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Azman Yusoff, Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, and RM19.5 million from Mamfor Sdn Bhd) and three counts of alleged money laundering through money that Bersatu received from Bukhary Equity.

The trial before High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin will resume on May 25.