The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court will decide on April 26 whether or not to allow the prosecution's application to admit the evidence obtained in Hong Kong that appears to link Perwaja ex-boss Eric Chia to the RM76.4 million deposited in a third-party account.

Judge Akhtar Tahir set the date after hearing arguments by Chia's lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah who submitted that the prosecution's evidence from six witnesses in Hong Kong in August last year was "irrelevant and inadmissible".

"I will need time to consider all the arguments before making a final decision on the matter," said Akhtar.

Yesterday, during examination-in-chief of prosecution's last witness - Anti-Corruption Agency investigating officer Han Chee Rull - the prosecution applied to tender the testimonies from the six recorded by Hong Kong's Eastern Magistrate's Court.

Han was testifying against Chia ( photo ) who is charged with dishonestly authorising a payment of RM76.4 million to NKK Coporation (Japan) via the accounts of Frilsham Enterprise Incorporated and the American Express Bank Ltd, Hong Kong for Perwaja when in fact, no such payment was due.

The offence was allegedly committed on Feb 18, 1994 when he was managing director of Perwaja Rolling Mill and Development Sdn Bhd. Chia also faces an alternative charge of illegally entering into an agreement with NKK at the same place and time.

He is charged under section 409 of the Penal Code which carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.

' Inhumane' requirement

Earlier, Shafee argued that Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail had not exhausted all practical options to bring the foreign witnesses to Malaysia under section 9 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Macma).

"There were only six witnesses who gave evidence during the Hong Kong proceedings. To record that evidence, the prosecution had more than 10 people while the defence had six, making a total of at least 16 people in the entourage to Hong Kong," he said.

He claimed that it would have been a lot cheaper to arrange for the six witnesses to give their evidence in Malaysia. If the recording of evidence was done in Malaysia, Chia and his defence team would not have needed to travel all the way to Hong Kong, he said.

"To require my client to make such a travel is inhumane and unconscionable as he is wheelchair- bound and suffering from a spinal injury and diabetes," said Shafee.

Proceedings in Malaysia, he said, would also have benefited the trial judge who would have been able to hear the witnesses themselves and make salient and important observations on their demeanour . .

Contending that the collection of evidence was a judicial proceeding - to which the prosecution had disagreed - Shafee further argued that the court could not admit the Hong Kong evidence unless it was fully satisfied that this could not have been obtained any other way.

"It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to show that the witnesses in Hong Kong could not, for any reason whatsoever, be produced to give evidence in Malaysia," he said.

Senior deputy public prosecutor Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden had said yesterday that the evidence gathered in Hong Kong was relevant to show the 'money trail' of the alleged financial transaction involving Chia.

He said the prosecution wanted to show who the true owner of the Hong Kong- based Frilsham Enterprise's account was, and whether there was another monetary transaction which could be linked to the accused.