KUALA LUMPUR: E-commerce platform FashionValet founders Datin Vivy Sofinas Yusof and her husband, Datuk Fadzarudin Shah Anuar, claimed trial to charges of criminal breach of trust (CBT) involving RM8 million, six years ago.
Better known as Vivy Yusof, 37, she and Fadzarudin, 36, appeared together in the dock and entered their plea before Sessions Court judge Rosli Ahmad.
"I understand the charge. I claim trial," the couple each said to the court.
The couple is accused of having the common intention to commit CBT as directors of FashionValet Sdn Bhd, entrusted with investment funds from government-linked investment companies, Khazanah Nasional Berhad (Khazanah) and Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), totalling RM8 million.
They are alleged to have fraudulently made a RM8 million payment from FashionValet's bank account to 30 Maple Sdn Bhd without approval from FashionValet's board of directors.
30 Maple, which runs the luxury headscarf brand, dUCK, is owned by the couple.
The alleged offence took place at the Public Bank Berhad branch in Bukit Damansara on Aug 21, 2018.
If convicted under Section 409 of the Penal Code read with Section 34, the couple faces a jail term of not less than two years and up to 20 years, with whipping and a fine.
Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin said the prosecution could have objected to bail as the offence was non-bailable, but considered that the couple had cooperated with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
He offered a bail of between RM100,000 and RM200,000 in one surety each, citing a reasonable amount to secure the couple's attendance in court.
"We have the right to ask for both accused to surrender their passport to the court because the offence is very serious and there is a possibility of flight risk.
"To ensure justice for all, their passport must be surrendered to court as a guarantee. If they want to apply for the passport with any reasonable cause, they can apply for it anytime, and we may not have any objections.
"We also ask for both accused not to harass or influence prosecution witnesses as many of them are involved in FashionValet," he said.
In mitigation, defence lawyer Ashok Athimulan said his clients were not flight risks as they had cooperated with the MACC and there was no evidence that they tried to evade investigations or court proceedings.
He said they were given nine notices to attend investigations and they had adhered to it, even during weekends.
"I believe there is no need for the court to worry that they are flight risks and there is no need for a high bail sum to ensure attendance. They are already here today to face charges.
"They are married, live in Kuala Lumpur and their children are schooling here and their family are also here.
"They have a business in Malaysia and are based in KL and have deep roots in the community. So, it is impossible that they do not show up in court.
"They had also pleaded not guilty and that shows their intention to come to court proceedings to clear their name," he said.
Ashok said the couple were facing financial hardship as their assets and accounts had been frozen and it was affecting their daily lives.
He said they were now relying on assistance from their family and friends, who will also help to post bail.
"There is no reason for them to disturb investigations. The presumption is they are innocent until proven guilty.
"A high bail sum is like a punishment and that would not be fair to them.
"I ask for a reasonable bail sum. I have no objections to the additional conditions but I ask that they report to the Kuala Lumpur MACC office," he said.
In a rebuttal, Wan Shaharuddin said Ashok was missing the point.
"At that time (of investigations), their status were as witnesses.But now their status have changed, they are now the accused.
"Our application for them to surrender their passport is not restrictive."
"They are not banned from going overseas, they can but they have to apply to the court to get the passport temporarily.
"The bail sum is reasonable and it is not punitive that oppresses the accused, taking into consideration the RM8 million sum involved in this case. We asked for bail of between RM100,000 and RM200,000 and the court can consider (the range)," he said.
Rosli then called the respective bailor of the couple and asked about their relationship, to which they said they were friends.
The couple, who sat in the dock, looked calm and composed.
The court set bail at RM100,000 in one surety each, and ordered the couple to report to the Kuala Lumpur MACC in the first week of each month.
He also ordered the couple to surrender their passports to the court and prohibited them from harassing or attempting to influence any witnesses associated with the case.
The court set Jan 22 for mention.