Najib vs Datuk Harun Idris-40 years on which way will it swing....

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The prime minister and Umno president was reported as saying that he had taken the money on behalf of the party, and that it was not used for personal gain
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/…/najib-says-macc-cleare…
But then see:
Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 High Court, Kuala Lumpur (Raja Azlan Shah J).
Summary :

The accused was charged with three charges of corruption. It was alleged that the accused as Mentri Besar, Selangor: 

(a) solicited the sum of RM250,000 for UMNO as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of an application for a piece of state land; 

(b) being a member of a public body accepted for UMNO the sum of RM25,000 as an inducement to obtain such approval; 

(c) accepted for UMNO the sum of RM225,000 as an inducement to obtain such approval. It was also alleged that the accused was a member of a public body, namely, the government of Selangor, or alternatively, that he was an agent of the Ruler of the State of Selangor.

Holding :
Held: 

(1) the accused as Menteri Besar was a member of a public body, that is, the government of Selangor; 

(2) on the facts of this case, the accused did solicit for UMNO a gratification of RM250,000; 

(3) the circumstances in which the gratification was solicited gave rise to the inference that it was solicited corruptly; 

(4) the accused solicited the gratification as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of the application for the land;

 (5) the facts showed that the accused accepted a gratification from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank of RM25,000 through Haji Ahmad Razali at the airport on or about 16 August 1972 and that he on or about 27 March 1973 accepted from the Hongkong and Shanghai Corp a gratification of RM225,000 in his office in Kuala Lumpur;

(6) the accused accepted the gratification of RM25,000 and RM225,000 as an inducement to do an official act in connection with the bank's application for alienation of the land; 

(7) on the evidence, the prosecution had proved its case in relation to all three principal charges, which if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused;

 (8) the accused did not rebut the evidence for the prosecution and on all the evidence considered as a whole, the charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Digest :
Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 High Court, Kuala Lumpur (Raja Azlan Shah J).