Malaysia DPM Ahmad Zahid gets discharge not amounting to acquittal in charity foundation graft case

KUALA LUMPUR: On Monday( Sept 4) the Malaysian High Court granted a request from prosecutors to fall all corruption charges brought against the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, in his bone case involving the charity basis.

Ahmad Zahid, who was accused of 47 counts of criminal breach of trust( CBT ), bribery, and money laundering, was given a non-acquittal( DNAA ) by the court. He had entered a not guilty plea on each charge.

According to the New Straits Times, when the judge grants a DNAA, the accused is released from the current charges without being found not guilty of the charges.

If new data emerge, it was further stated that the trial still has the choice to drop the charges or reopen the case later.

The deputy prime minister was quoted by Free Malaysia Today outside the High Court saying,” My family and I are grateful to God because the jury decided to drop the 47 charges against me.” & nbsp,

Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, his attorney, announced to the local press that they would appeal the ruling from Monday’s court of appeal on Tuesday. Instead, they will be pursuing a complete exoneration of all Ahmad Zahid-related fees.

Ahmad Zahid, 70, was facing 47 charges, including tens of millions of ringgit that belonged to Yayasan Akalbudi( YAB ), including 12 for CBT, eight for bribery, and 27 for money laundering.

YAB is a base for charities. The foundation’s trustee and sole signatory for checks is the president of the United Malay National Organization( UMNO ).

Ahmad Zahid’s test started on November 18, 2019, and roughly 116 days of receiving have passed since then, according to the Malay Mail.

Ahmad Zahid was appointed as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s lieutenant and Minister of Rural and Regional Development on December 2 of last year.

Ahmad Zahid was exonerated in a separate corruption case involving the unusual visa system in September of last year. Indonesian internet subsequently cited the High Court judge as saying that the trial had not proven a prima facie case against him.