• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Andrew Loh is fucking miffed.

Aaron carter

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jun 4, 2024
Messages
789
Points
43
03dvc38ng30e1.jpeg
 
Andrew Loh is inaccurate. There were no original 35 counts of corruption. There were only 2 counts of corruption. The AGC cited "risk of litigation" in respect of the 2 counts of corruption, i.e. the AGC wasn't confident it would secure a conviction for the 2 counts of corruption.

To prove that the accused accepted the bribe with corrupt intent, invariably you need the person who bribed (OBS) to testify against the person being bribed (ISW). Remember Cecilia was the prosecution witness in the case of NBG and in exchange Cecilia was NOT charged. However, in this case the AGC proceeded with the trial of ISW even though (OBS) wasn't prepared to be the prosecution witness. In fact OBS was charged only after the trial of ISW. In my opinion, the AGC should have proceeded against OBS first, secured a conviction, and used the conviction of OBS as evidence against ISW, if OBS was not prepared to testify against ISW.

Yes, there was a risk of litigation but it was created by the AGC itself by putting the cart before the horse.
 
Back
Top