Former Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Ramli Yusuff has been freed from three charges of failing to declare his assets by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

Judge M Gunalan ruled today that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission had failed to prove a prima facie case against Ramli, who was once the country's third most powerful police officer.

ramli yusuff asset declare case 120310 05 In 2007, Ramli hinted that charges against him and other police officers were the result of their investigations on an alleged underworld kingpin.

MACC's prosecution and legal head Abdul Razak Musa has indicated that the anti-corruption commission will appeal the decision.

Meanwhile, a teary-eyed Ramli thanked his lawyers, daughter and wife for standing by him.

In a prepared ramli yusuff asset declare case 120310 02 statement, the former top cop said the case had resulted in him losing his rank, seniority and reputation.

Ramli also urged the MACC to withdraw the charge against his lawyer friend, Rosli Dahlan, who is facing similar charge of not declaring his assets with the previous Anti-Corruption Agency.

He urged his former colleagues,whom he called the "men in blue”, to do their job fearlessly and professionally.

"Uphold your oath of office to ‘sedia berkhidmat’. Do not be afraid of the 'syndicate'. Protect the innocent."

He did not elaborate what he meant by the 'syndicate'.

The RM27 mil man

Ramli was widely implicated by the ACA to be the police officer with assets worth RM27 million of which he had strongly denied.

Late last year, he was acquitted and discharged with ordering the use of a police aircraft for his personal interest in 2007 when he was former Sabah police chief.

NONE The decision today absolved him of the allegations which was made against him but raises questions on the status of inspector-general of police Musa Hassan ( right ), whose contract had been extended to September.

Ramli was charged on Nov 1, 2007 with failure to disclose his assets :

1. Two office lots owned by his sisters at Jalan Yap Kuan Seng in Kuala Lumpur. The properties were registered under Bonus Circle Sdn Bhd and were purchased for slightly more than RM1 million. His sisters were directors in the investment holding company.

2. Owning 154,000 unit of shares in Pemaju Industries Bhd..

3. Not declaring Telekom Malaysia Bhd shares.

Absence of thorough and fair probe

Gunalan in his decision said the complainant to the then ACA was a person of dubious character with having engaged in a string of criminal activities.

“There is the absence of a fair and thorough investigation to ascertain the truth of the related allegation based on the information relied upon by the complainant whom the court cannot consider to be credible and adequate enough ... to suggest the accused had committed the offence.

On the first charge of having interests in the office lots, Gunalan said the question of the accused having legal interests in the properties can totally be ruled out.

As with the second charge, Gunalan described the remiser's testimony and his credibility as negligible.

“The fact that the accused (Ramli) had exhibited his statement could by itself prove that the accused had no intention to conceal the share transactions, including the Pemaju counter undertaken in this account,” he said.

“To summarise, it could not be concluded from the testimony that it was the accused who has placed the order (for the shares), but it was confirmed that none of the payment was made by the accused. Neither was there any receipts issued to him. The purchase could have been made by a third party by using the accused’s account.”

With the third charge, the judge said the charge stated the accused had not made a declaration of the purchase of the Telekom shares on Sept 17, 2007, however, the evidence only indicated that he became the owner of the shares two days later.

“Sept 17 was the effective cut-off date for the disclosure, and any other construction would be illogical and perhaps also unjust.”

“Hence, the ingredients of the charges have not been established as the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case.”

Fallout with Musa

Prior to his charge in 2007, Ramli had strongly hinted that he and his officers were being victimised after his department took action against an alleged underworld kingpin - Johor-based businessman Goh Cheng Poh @ Tengku.

aca police corruption ramli yusuff tit for tat 191107 new versi The probe against Goh was carried out by a task force formed by then deputy internal security minister Johari Baharom, who himself was accused of having links with underground figures.

Goh, who was alleged to have ties with Musa, was placed under restricted residence by Ramli's department. It is believed that Musa had wanted Goh released.

Following this, the Attorney-General’s Chambers was said to have refused to draft affidavits for both Johari and Ramli in their response to Goh's habeas corpus application. They had to hire a private lawyer, Rosli Dahlan, to do the job.

Subsequently, Rosli was also charged by the ACA with failure to declare his assets.

The lawyer had however filed suits against the ACA, Bank Negara and three newspapers - The Star, New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia - in which he detailed how the IGP had used the MACC and the AG’s Chambers against him and Ramli.

Rosli had also claimed assault and false imprisonment when he was charged on Hari Raya's eve 2007.

VIDEO l 2.40 min

MACC undeterred by ex-top cop's acquittal

SPECIAL REPORT: Top cop vs top cop