PUTRAJAYA, Feb 18 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) 2015 trip to Saudi Arabia was not to get preplanned and completed statements by an alleged Saudi prince and Low Taek Jho’s associate Eric Tan for investigations on RM2.6 billion which entered Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts, the High Court heard.

Fikri Ab Rahim, one of four MACC officers who went on the 2015 Saudi trip, denied that the investigators had just “cut and pasted” the completed statements from the purported Saudi prince and Tan.

Fikri said this while testifying as the eighth defence witness in Najib’s trial, where over RM2 billion of 1Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) funds were alleged to have entered the former prime minister’s accounts.

The two individuals whom the MACC met in Saudi Arabia were allegedly Prince Saud Abdulaziz Majid Al Saud who purportedly promised to give millions of US dollars as “gifts” to Najib through four “donation” letters including via Tanore Finance Corporation, and Tan who owned Tanore Finance Corporation.

In reply to deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib’s suggestion that he had already known that MACC was only going to Saudi Arabia to take the completed statements for the alleged Prince Saud and Tan even before he flew there, Fikri said: “Disagree.”

Akram said this was because MACC investigators had taken a very short time to record these two statements, namely just 20 minutes from the alleged Saudi prince through his lawyer and representative Mohamad Abdullah Al-Koman, and just 25 minutes from Tan.

But Fikri instead said that MACC officer Datuk Mohd Hafaz Nazar who recorded the two men’s statements was “capable”.

Pressed by Akram on whether there was already a plan for MACC to just “cut and paste” and convert the alleged pre-prepared statements into MACC’s format to be brought back to Malaysia, Fikri again disagreed.

Akram: Why I said you did that, is because the investigation was on a sitting PM, that’s why everything has been pre-planned. You just go there and take and come back.

Fikri: Disagree.

Akram: And because of your contribution, you were promoted quickly.

Fikri: Disagree.

Previously, Fikri had said MACC’s investigations in 2015 were on where the RM2.6 billion which entered then prime minister Najib’s bank accounts had come from, and if the four donation letters purportedly from Prince Saud were genuine, and if Prince Saud did donate money to Najib.

Later when asked by Najib’s lead defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah if he had planned together with the MACC team to get pre-planned statements in Saudi Arabia and if that was why he was promoted quickly, Fikri disagreed.

Fikri said that he only had a fast promotion from Grade 41 to Grade 51, and that he was already a Grade 51 officer in MACC at the time of the Saudi trip in 2015, and that it was only in 2017 that he was promoted to Jusa C.

Fikri said his promotion was determined by MACC and by its then MACC chief Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed (who was chief until August 1, 2016), denying that Najib had anything to do with his promotion and saying that investigations were not completed in 2015.

“The investigations have not been completed and I didn’t concur to that investigation, so I don’t see Datuk Seri Najib playing a role in my promotion,” he said, insisting that it was Abu Kassim who had promoted him.

Last week, when quizzed by Akram who described him as having been a “rising star” within the MACC, Fikri had confirmed he was promoted quickly and that he was the first person in his 2005 batch to hold the Jusa C rank.

Akram had last week suggested that Fikri’s quick promotion to the Jusa C rank within just 11 or 12 years was due to the quality of work, to which Fikri had said he believed this to be the case.

Fikri had last week said that he is currently on leave as a senior officer of MACC’s governance division until this August and is currently not assigned any tasks there, but said he has been asked by a few CEOs to provide advice on anti-money laundering and compliance in a few companies.

Among other things, Fikri also said today he was unsure if it was the MACC or the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) who had arranged the five-man team (including four MACC officers and one AGC representative) to Saudi Arabia in 2015 for the investigations.

Later he said the AGC had made all the arrangements, but said he did not know who in the AGC had made such arrangements.

While acknowledging that the complaint to MACC which sparked investigations had already stated that Najib had in 2013 received US$681 million from Tanore and while knowing that Tan was Tanore’s owner, Fikri confirmed that both he and then investigations chief Tan Sri Azam Baki did not give orders for Tan to produce documents for his statement in Saudi.

Fikri agreed he did not give orders — to the investigating officer Mohd Nasharudin Amir and the recording officer Hafaz before the duo recorded Tan’s statement — to obtain documents, but disagreed this was because he knew they were there to “cut and paste” Tan’s statement.

Fikri confirmed that the list of 13 transactions for the US$681 million in both Tan’s statement and the alleged prince’s representative’s statement were in the same “typeface” and had an “identical” arrangement.

Explaining why he thought it was possible for MACC to record the alleged prince’s representative statement in just 20 minutes, Fikri said there are two types of individuals, those who were unprepared, and those who have already been prepared before MACC records their statement as they know what MACC requires.

He said the AGC had made all the arrangements for MACC to go to Saudi to record statements, but said he did not know who in the AGC had made such arrangements.

Fikri said he believed the Saudis already knew why the MACC was there, as he said MACC would — when requesting for help — usually explain the purpose of its trip and what documents are needed and who are the witnesses that would be interviewed.

Fikri said he believed the Saudis knew that the MACC was there to record just Prince Saud’s statement, and said Tan was by coincidence there and he did not know whether there were prior arrangements made to record Tan’s statement.

He said both Prince Turki and Prince Faisal knew the MACC was not there to record their statements, and that the MACC did not request to see the passports of these two individuals.

Among other things, Fikri agreed he did not write down any details from the alleged Prince Saud’s passport which was shown to him upon the MACC’s request, but said this was because he believed the other MACC officers would record these details when taking the alleged prince’s statement.

The statement which MACC recorded from the alleged prince’s representative was shown today in court as carrying the passport details.

Fikri today told Shafee that no one at the meeting in Saudi with the alleged prince had doubted Prince Saud’s passport as possibly being fake or had thought there was a need to verify the passport.

Fikri also said he had not thought at all that the man he met was not Prince Saud or had no ties with the Saudi royal family, and said he does not know of any police report lodged over any alleged use of false identity in this case.

Today, Nazaruddin Md Kasim, who was formerly AmBank’s senior vice president of compliance department from October 2015 to August 2024, testified as the ninth defence witness.

Among other things, Nazaruddin said he would not know if AmBank had filed any suspicious transaction reports (STR) to Bank Negara Malaysia on money coming in to Naijb’s account in 2013 as he had yet to work at the bank then.

Nazaruddin also said STRs are private and confidential documents that cannot be disclosed to a bank’s account holder if the STR is filed against the latter, and also said the bank has the option to either stop or allow a transaction to continue after filing an STR.

Najib’s 1MDB trial before trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah resumes this Thursday.