Crime & Courts

Wan Saiful labels charges as a distraction from govt's incompetence [NSTTV]

KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) supreme council member Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan claimed that his money laundering charges today were merely a ploy to distract the public from Putrajaya's incompetence.

Wan Saiful, who is the former Bersatu information chief, said the government led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had numerous failures including controlling the prices of commodities, cost of living and also institutional reform that the latter had chanted for so many years.

"Hence, they are compelled to find new issues to distract the public from their failures. Even demonstrations against Israeli actions have failed, as many complaints have been received regarding those protests," he told reporters after being slapped with 18 charges of money laundering today.

Commenting further, Wan Saiful claimed the diversion was necessary as the government has been receiving constant criticism from the public and said that the case was rushed by the prosecutors.

"I was initially brought in, and the process of being charged was ultimately decided in the first court, where I was released without being acquitted. I didn't understand why I was released without charges at that time since I had not been charged yet.

"However, due to this confusion, a series of events unfolded, including the collection of DNA samples, which took around 30 minutes. After that, I was immediately charged again in the adjacent courtroom, which signifies how disorganised the process was.

"If this had been well-planned, I believe the DNA collection would not have occurred prior to the charges," he added.

Wan Saiful claimed trial to 18 charges of money laundering amounting to RM5.59 million at the Sessions Court here today.

The Tasek Gelugor member of Parliament pleaded not guilty after all the charges were read to him in front of Judge Suzana Hussin.

Wan Saiful was charged under Section 4(1)(b) Anti-Money Laundering Act, which was read together with Section 87(1)(a) under the same Act.

Prior to his plea, there was a technical problem which caused the prosecution to re-file the charges as there was only one charge in the system.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories