Former Selangor MB Mohd Khir Toyo's defence team today tried to poke holes in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) valuation by property management firm Henry Butcher.

NONE The report, which valued the mansion bought by Khir from Ditamas Sdn Bhd director Shamsuddin Hayroni at RM5.5 million, was much higher than the valuation prepared on behalf of Khir's bank for the purpose of his loan, by Rahim & Co.

Meanwhile, the report commissioned by Khir's bank valued the mansion and land at lot 8 and 10 off Jalan Suasa in Section 7 Shah Alam to be worth RM3.5 million, the price at which Khir subsequently bought the property.

While cross-examining the witness, defence lawyer Jahabardeen Mohd Yunus zeroed in on the lack of information available to the Henry Butcher valuation team.

Grilling the Henry Butcher valuation director responsible for the report, who took the witness stand in the afternoon to continue his testimony cut short by a business trip last week, Jahabardeen posited that the property management firm's team lacked three things:

1) Access to all areas of the property.

2) Materials and renovation work costs.

3) Sight of the inside of the property to confirm for building integrity, rot and infestation, as well as quality of finishing and materials used.

The defence attorney also quoted the Malaysian Valuation Standard that valuations of a property done in the present are better than any done as future estimates or past projections.

The report by the Henry Butcher team represented the property's 2007 value, when Khir bought the house, but was completed in 2009, when construction was finished. Rahim & Co's report was done in 2007.

Compensating for incomplete information

Jahabbardeen then proposed that, had the Henry Butcher director been given all the above, his evaluation may differ from his current figure of RM5.5 million.

"It is possible," agreed the valuer.

Despite agreeing to all the above, the witness stressed that, in his qualified opinion, he and his team were able to compensate for the admitted shortcomings by using expert knowledge on building valuation and extracting relevant information from approved building plans as well as the previous valuation by Rahim & Co.

During the cross-examination and re-examination, the valuer also stood firm that his valuation is the best possible result from a professional firm.

He also refused to comment on the huge gap between his and Rahim & Co's valuations, saying that he does not know exactly what assumptions were made in the earlier valuations nor what specific calculations were used.

"It's not fair (to comment on the matter)," chimed in Justice Mohtarudin Baki, who presided over the case, agreeing with the valuer that he cannot comment on another professional's report.