The private investigator hired by Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu told the Shah Alam High Court today that she had married political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda two years ago in Hong Kong.

Ang Chong Beng ( photo ), 56, who began testifying yesterday said he was hired by Altantuya, 28, last September to find out whether Razak was still in the country.

She had claimed that Razak, at that time, was her husband of two years.

Cross-examined by Razak's counsel Wong Kian Kheong, Ang said the information was related to him by Altantuya herself and that he did not suspect anything was amiss.

"I did not ask for proof whether she was married or not because I had no right to," he told Wong through a translator.

When asked whether Altantuya had produced any marriage documents, Ang replied, "No, she just said so," adding that he never suspected she was lying.

"I agree that I took her bare assertion at face value despite being a private investigator of 22 years."

Ang revealed that Altantuya had called him at around 6pm on Oct 19 and asked him to take her to Razak's house in Bukit Damansara.

"She told me that (Razak's private investigator P) Balasubramaniam had called her and told her to go to Razak's house. I told her that I was in Johor and I didn't have time. I told her to take a taxi (to Razak's place)," he said.

According to previous witnesses, Altantuya was last seen on Oct 19 outside Razak's house. She arrived in a taxi but was allegedly taken away by chief inspector Azilah Hadri in a red Proton Wira.

'No share of money'

Wong also probed the private investigator about the night Altantuya went to the Brickfields police station to lodge a police report.

Wong : Did you suspect that the Mongolian women - who visited Razak at his office several times but consistently failed to see him - could be harassing Razak? Did it cross your mind?

Ang : Yes.

Wong : Did you know you and Altantuya went uninvited to Razak's house at 11pm on Oct 17 last year?

Ang : Yes.

Wong : Did you know Razak's house was private property?

Ang : Yes.

Wong : In your experience as a PI of 22 years, what offence could Razak have committed if he had uninvited visitors to his private property at 11pm?

Ang : I don't know.

Wong : Would you agree that Razak in these circumstances have done nothing wrong and Altantuya had no basis to lodge a police report against him that night.

Ang : Yes

Ang, who said he was paid US$600 (RM2,090) by Altantuya in Oct 1 last year, denied that he was promised a share of the US$500,000 (RM1.74 million) that she was said to have demanded from Razak.

He said he did not know whether Razak and Altantuya were Muslim or whether Razak was married.

Wong also asked if Altantuya had told Ang what she would do if Razak did not pay her the US$500,000.

Ang answered: "Yes, she said if Razak does not pay her, she would reveal everything (about her relationship with Razak) to his wife, his daughter Rowena, TV3, reporters and to the rest of the world."

Words 'were mine'

Earlier today, Ang admitted that he had written the missing person's report that was lodged at the Jalan Tun HS Lee police station in the morning by Altantuya's cousin Namiraa Gerelmaa after Altantuya's disappearance.

"Yes, all the words were mine from the first to the last sentence. Actually, I wanted to make a police report myself because Altantuya was my client," he told deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup.

"I let Namiraa do it (make the report) because I thought she is closer to Altantuya. Namiraa could not speak proper English and could only say 'Altantuya no come back'."

Ang, who has avoided being photographed by shielding the lower half his face with a brown envelope, had been answering questions in court with a blue subpoena document and Mykad over his face since yesterday.

Meanwhile, Razak told reporters from the dock that he would direct his lawyers to check with the Hong Kong marriage registrar for proof of his purported marriage to Altantuya as far back as September 2004.

"I am 100 percent sure that she (Altantuya) is lying," he said before being taken away during the lunch break.

The hearing resumed shortly after 2.15pm.