Confusion over time spent checking documents

The royal commission of inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock today questioned a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission witness why investigators took “nearly two hours” just to check seized documents with the late political secretary.

Teoh, who was brought in for questioning on the alleged misuse of state funds by his employer, Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah in 2009, was interviewed by MACC assistant enforcement officer Arman Alies and his colleague, Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus.

Panel chairperson Justice James Foong asked Arman if he went “beyond his scope of power” in interrogating the political secretary “for that long”, just on the documents.

Teoh, who was interrogated overnight from July 15, 2009, at the Selangor MACC’s office on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam, was found dead on the fifth floor landing of the same building the next afternoon.

“Your instructions were to question Teoh Beng Hock about the four documents only, so why did you need such a long time?” Foong asked.

Arman (left) said he had to ‘go through each document, arranged in four files”.

He said he was on July 15, 2009, ordered by MACC investigations unit head Hairul Ilham Hamzah to interview Teoh on his employer’s use of state funds.

“Hairul asked me (to find out) about the four invoices and quotations for supplies and construction, which were retrieved and printed out from Teoh’s laptop.

‘Invoices unsigned, looked suspicious’

“The four invoices were unsigned and looked suspicious because they should not be in Teoh’s possession, as they were from the companies. (The other documents were suspicious because) it was as if the signatures did not correspond with the names, like they were signed on purpose.

“When asked about this, Teoh said that he got the invoices via email and saved them in his laptop,” said Arman.

Justice Foong (right) interrupted and asked, “If your orders were to only check on the four invoices, why did you take so long? Why was it so difficult?”

Arman: For you information, your honour, the (invoices) were only a part of the four files that had other documents.

Foong: Then, were the questions directed at Teoh outside the parameters of the four invoices?

Arman: Yes, there were (other questions), not only from the four invoices.

Foong: Hairul told you to investigate the four invoices, so why did you go beyond your scope?

Arman: I don't understand.

Foong: Did you ask Teoh about other companies (besides the invoices)?

Arman: Yes, I did ask Teoh about the other companies.

The MACC officer from Putrajaya added that his interview with Teoh was restricted to “checking and verifying signatures on several documents that looked fake” and some of the claims suspected of not being executed.

Arman also said he asked Teoh if he could “sign work confirmation on behalf of Ean Yong?” and “why were most (projects) awarded via direct negotiations as there no quotations from other companies?”

As Teoh had answered in the affirmative, Arman said he asked Teoh whether he was aware of the “treasury order on supplier and selection of contractors?” to which the latter said “no”.

Arman said he asked this questions as he “was told that there were claims for some events which might not have taken place”.

Commissioner Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (left) then asked Arman what was his “basis” in investigating Teoh as a witness.

Foong intervened and suggested that Arman was “on a fishing trip”, to which Abdul Kadir replied that the MACC officer could have also harboured a “personal grudge”.

However, Arman stressed he did not have “any working ties” with Teoh and after the interview was completed he went about doing his work.

‘Teoh was your clerk’

To this commissioner T Selventhiranathan asked Arman why they decided to question Teoh instead of approaching the individual companies which were allocated funds first.

Arman replied that it can be done, but he was not instructed to do so by the commanding officer.

He then went on to identify the documents where the signatures that did not tally with the seal as Teoh had signed several paper that bore Yong’s seal.

It prompted Foong to attribute that the “entire bundle of documents seems to be suspicious”.

“The basis for suspicion is if there are no supporting documents like photos for events,” said Arman when Foong asked what was the reason for suspicion.

The commissioner again repeated: “What I don’t understand in my mind is why you take two hours to ask simple questions?”

Arman: I tagged the documents together with Teoh.

Foong: It is like he (Teoh) was a clerk? Tagging for you? The commission has doubts, were other questions asked? Anything else happened?

Arman: No.

He asserted that they just tagged documents while Teoh looked through the bulk files for supporting documents for the four invoices.

As Foong kept pressing why it took the investigators “two hours”, Arman corrected the commission that the interview was only from 10.30pm to 11.50pm.

The inquiry resumes at 2.15pm, after the lunch break.