|Chin Kwai Fatt. |
During cross examination, he said that PwC Malaysia did not have a system, to record the receipt of and to track, client's documents.
On 22nd January 2013, PwC Malaysia lost its leave application at the Federal Court to strike out the second plaintiff. The court's decision was unanimous.
The case is ongoing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
According to our PwC insider, PwC counsel Rabindra Nathan in his submissions refers to a 27th July e-mail which was among 11 documents ruled inadmissible by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 5th December, 2012.
Three very important witnesses (including Datuk Ramesh Rajaratnam and Yeap Kok Hu) were not called by PwC Malaysia. All three were ex-Executive Directors of PwC Malaysia.
The three of them were ready to give evidence if they were allowed to speak the truth. The three witnesses now reside and work in Kuala Lumpur, and there is no reason why PwC Malaysia did not call them as witnesses as they had personal knowledge as to what happened to the intellectual property which was valued at RM 75 million by PwC Malaysia.
PwC Malaysia's track record of misdeeds in this ongoing case :
i. The safe story, of the documents that were found the day before - read the story here
ii. Concealing documents before trial started -
iii. Forced to give discovery after plaintiffs knew of these documents - read that story here
iv. Go on to fabricate documents which were eventually ruled inadmissible by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 5th December, 2012 - and that story can be read here.
Rabindra Nathan would stoop so low as to refer to an non existent e-mail dated 27th July in submissions knowing very well that if the ex-Executive Directors were allowed to give evidence at the trial, they would have confirmed that this e-mail was fabricated.
An explosive e-mail exchange between two PwC Directors is now in our possession. this e-mail is at the end of November 2012, about a week before Lee Geok Ling took the stand. This e-mail will be published in the upcoming book once the trial is completed.
The gist of the e-mail is as follows.
"Why on earth is Lee Geok Ling taking the stand, when we don't know where these documents came from?"
True enough, Lee Geok Ling in his evidence said that these documents could have been manipulated. If Lee Geok Ling was sure that these documents were genuine and not fabricated, there is absolutely no reason for him to say that these documents could have been manipulated.