Conspiracy to defraud.?? Indelible ink fiasco and other sheenanigans of the EC

Indelible ink that turns out to be edible ink , phantom voters, electoral roll discrepancies and on and on.! That suggest intent already to defraud.

Maybe the PR  Lawyers should have a 2nd  look at the common law definition of conspiracy to defraud  and see if it can be made to stick to the EC . Election petition not withstanding. 

 If the burden of proof is sufficient to incriminate them , throw the book at them.

The fiasco with the incredible indelible ink that turns out to be ink edible is already sufficient  grounds  for an inquiry. Hopefully an RCI. 

Conspiracy to Defraud

Conspiracy to defraud is a common law offence.  The offence of conspiracy to defraud requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. The offence is extremely wide. It is sufficient for the fraudsters to know that the result of their actions will necessarily result in the defrauding of the victims. The fraudsters do not have to intend to defraud the victim as the primary purpose of the conduct. The offence does not require deception or an intent to cause financial loss.

Acts which may be non-criminal, for example a tort, may become criminal where a conspiracy to defraud exists. In other words an act can be carried out by one Defendant independently and this act would not amount to a criminal offence. Conversely the same act carried out by two persons may constitute an offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Conspiracy to defraud requires an element of dishonesty. However the current definition of dishonesty means that activities which may not normally be a criminal offence may be found to be fraudulent if a jury finds them to be dishonest. Consequently prosecutors have an extremely wide discretion as to whether to commence criminal proceedings for conspiracy to defraud and this can potentially result in unfair prosecutions.

The standard definition of a conspiracy to defraud was provided by Lord Dilhorne in Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, when he said that

it is clearly the law that an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to deprive a person/persons of something which is theirs or to which he is or would be entitled and an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his, suffices to constitute the offence of conspiracy to defraud.

In simple terms: Knowing you were going to commit fraud, by obtaining something by deception.

 Person/persons guilty of conspiracy to defraud is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment .


Themalaysianinsider.com

Food colouring, not chemicals, was in the indelible ink used in the general election, the Election Commission (EC) admitted today in the Dewan Rakyat.

"No chemical was used in the ink but it was instead replaced with permitted food colouring," said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim in his reply to Segambut Member of Parliament Lim Lip Eng.

His statement was in stark contrast with the EC's claim that it used silver nitrate in the ink. He said the absence of the required chemical was the reason the ink was easily washed off.

 Malaysian Insider comments:

Not only the indelible become delible but edible as well, Ahhh..that was where they made the mistake, they ordered the wrong ink !? it was supposed to be edible ink ! don't be surprised next that the EC blames it on a typo..

busukbelacan

1 kg of potassium permanganate ( very dark purple)( costing RM50) can do the job easily compared to RM 7 million food dye !! Moreover it oxidises into black ink which is indelible !!
The EC commission top brass must have pocketed millions for this food dye ink !!

PNL

Get the RM7.1m back then lock them up - WELD shut the cell door and GIVE them back the key!!!

ayam5656

Let's see what fruit gives purple colouring:

Grape
Cranberry
Raspberry
Blackcurrant
Mangosteen skin
Markisa
Dragonfruit

Any other fruits missed out ??

SaSagoo

The rotten fruit coming out from EC Chairman's and BN's mouth!

ayam5656

Why no response from BN MPs ?
Busy drinking the edible ink, izzit ???

PandaiTapiBodoh

They were "dye-ing" to "make a quick killing"

Paul Warren

Food colouring also is made up of chemicals. Where does this bloke think food colouring comes from? Natural colours is it? This artificial colours that was required would not have even cost R500,000 to do. Why pay so much for?

fairplaylee

Tax payers money gone to waste and who profited? EC are really liars and cheated the Rakyat. So can we call the 13th GE fraud?.

DotcomSays

EC :" He...he...he...dakwat tak kekal.....KAMI KEKAL.....he....he...he..hentam EC kaw kaw"

Macademia

 after this revelation the resignation of EC is far from sufficient. A revamp of the whole of EC is needed to make it truly independent and with integrity. Blatant bias by the EC leaders, now-exposed cheating...this shouldn't be the way Malaysians elect their future leaders. This is more akin to South Africa during apartheid! First class facilities, 3rd class mentality and now pre-historic political system

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





More on the Indelible ink controversy

27th june 2013

If the word Misfeasance is interpreted by Wikipedia as someone taking inappropriate action or give intentionally incorrect advice, in my opinion, the Election Commission Chairman, Abdul Aziz Yusof and his deputy, Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, have committed it!

Both no longer enjoy public confidence, and If they do not resign, the Opposition should table a motion in parliament for the plea to be made to the Yang Dipertuan Agong to sack them, and the entire council, so as to protect the good name of the Agong.

The blatant lies told by the Election Commission duo about the controversial ink used in the last General Election also calls for a special inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament and the Auditor General's office so that the truth can be known to the public and a decision should also be made to see if there was indeed a breach of public trust and an act of misfeasance.

At least in my opinion, the breach of trust is criminal in nature as it involves a total of RM7.1 million of public funds - and the EC chairman and his deputy were found to be anything but honest about the use of indelible ink.

A whopping RM7.1 million Spent

The cost of purchasing the ink is far too high. Even with the worse case scenario, where the indelible ink uses silver nitrate, a bottle costs only US$5. With 26,000 voting streams, and each stream with 800 voters, and we supply two bottles each to be safe, we are talking about a total of 52,000 bottles for the entire country. This is a total of US$260,000 or in Ringgit Malaysia, nothing more than one million Ringgit. There is nothing really special about the ink bottles or the brush used, because there are truly no reasons for such aesthetically designed bottles or brushes. If it indelible ink, it is indelible ink, stupid!

Why has the EC spent a whopping RM7.1 million on the controversial ink? Assuming that you are spending RM6.9 million on 99.99% pure silver alone, you can get at least 2 metric tonnes and it will not cost you RM200,000 to ship that amount of pure silver from London to Kuala Lumpur. What transportation costs are we talking about when the ink bottles were all part of the voting equipment to be shipped across the country during the run-up to GE13?

In my opinion, the EC duo had not only committed public breach of trust when they spoke to the public about the indelible ink, but the case is in fact criminal in nature, because it involves such a huge amount of public funds.

 Full report:http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/