Accepting money given by well-wishers is not a crime: Yameen tells court

Former President Abdulla Yameen said today that if well-wishers give money to someone holding the office of President and no specific unlawful act is done in return for that money, then accepting it is not a problem. Yameen made the remarks while presenting his final defence statement in the case accusing him of accepting USD one million as a bribe for leasing R. Fuggiri and laundering the money. The defence argues that the USD one million at the centre of the case is money obtained by converting rufiyaa that Yameen had acquired through various means. They questioned how he earned so much money while holding the position of President, at a time when the state has prohibited doing business. At the hearing held today to present closing statements, Yameen said that although he did not engage in business in practice, he earned income by leasing properties and through other means. He also said financial statements would show that he held large sums of money even before assuming the presidency. He further said that while holding the office of President, well-wishers who believe he is capable of serving a second term provide assistance in various ways. Noting that such money comes to him politically because he is a political figure, Yameen said not all of that money is money that must be given to a political party. Yameen said giving money by well-wishers and accepting it is not something that is prohibited, and that a problem would arise only if, in return for money given in that way, something that facilitates corruption was done. Responding to questions raised by the state about keeping cash at home instead of depositing money in a bank, he said keeping money at home is not a prohibited thing. He said his residence is a place maintained for security, and that he does not consider keeping money there to be a problem. "No free evidence" In the Fuggiri case, the main evidence against Yameen consists of former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb and former MMPRC Managing Director Abdullah Ziyath. Yameen raised questions about the truthfulness of their testimony. Yameen said Adeeb was granted leniency, and that the agreement made by the state was something done to obtain a statement from Adeeb against him in this case. Yameen's lawyers also raised numerous questions regarding the testimony of Adeeb and Ziyath. Defence lawyer Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed said Adeeb and Ziyath are a "machine" used by the state to manufacture evidence against Yameen. Noting that the Supreme Court has also determined that the two are transgressors and that there is enmity between them and Yameen, Jameel said no weight can be given to their testimony to prove guilt against Yameen. The Prosecutor General said in court today that the corruption within MMPRC was carried out on Yameen's instructions, and that the R. Fuggiri lease transaction was also done by him to obtain money. Jameel noted that in the MMPRC corruption case the original culprits are Adeeb and Ziyath, who have admitted to it, and that the state has freed the two. In exchange, he said, Yameen is being politically victimised. Jameel said these charges are an act carried out by the state intervening unconstitutionally to politically isolate Yameen. Yameen's defence lawyer Hamza Latheef said Adeeb and Ziyath gave testimony at a time when there was an agreement between them and the state, a situation in which they were receiving various benefits and leniency to the extent the state was satisfied. Hamza raised questions over whether the testimony of people in such a position could be just. Hamza said that if any fault was committed in leasing Fuggiri, Adeeb and Ziyath have admitted to it. He said there is no evidence from the state linking anything related to that transaction to Yameen. He said a dollar transaction that took place many days after the Fuggiri lease transaction cannot be linked to it, and therefore it cannot be proven that it was money obtained through a crime. When it cannot be proven that the money was obtained through a crime, he said, the elements of the money laundering offence cannot be established. Hamza also raised questions over the fact that the case of Krik Riza, whom the state prosecuted as the person who gave the bribe, has been sent back. The charges against two foreign companies for facilitating money laundering were not proven, and the state decided not to appeal that case. Hamza questioned the state's intention in pursuing only Yameen's case while leaving out others included in the matter. The state also presented its closing statement yesterday. The hearings have now concluded, and the judge has said the judgment hearing will be held on the 29th of this month. In addition to this case, a case over alleged corruption in leasing V. Aarah is also proceeding in the Criminal Court. It is now proceeding as a trial after the High Court ordered a fresh examination, overturning an earlier Criminal Court ruling that the case had been proven.