KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 3 — Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been made a target or "bullseye” by the prosecution to be held responsible for the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) financial scandal where over RM2.2 billion of the company’s funds allegedly entered his personal AmIslamic bank accounts, his lawyers argued in court today.

The defence argued that Najib’s actions matched the probability that he was innocent, as he had believed the millions of ringgit deposited into his accounts and which he had used were donations from Saudi Arabia.

In arguing that Najib should walk free from the 25 charges he is facing in the 1MDB trial, his lawyer Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin claimed that the prosecution’s case was based on conjectures and hearsay that cannot be admitted in court as evidence.

Wan Azwan Aiman today sought to counter the prosecution’s arguments yesterday that Najib was at the "centre” of people involved in the 1MDB saga and that officials could not "run away” from him, claiming that Najib was figuratively at the "centre” akin to a target.

"Yes, he was placed at the centre, he was a target, he was a bullseye,” he said, adding that there were prosecution witnesses who may have committed misdeeds over 1MDB matters that had not been charged.

The lawyer also questioned why the prosecution had placed Najib at the "centre” of this network, when the former finance minister had not been charged or implicated in various 1MDB-linked trials in Singapore, New York or Switzerland and when he had not been charged as abetting 1MDB-linked individuals such as fugitive Low Taek Jho and 1MDB’s former in-house lawyer Jasmine Loo in their separate criminal cases in Malaysia.

Wan Azwan Aiman also questioned why Low – better known as Jho Low – had not been charged in court alongside Najib in the RM2.2 billion 1MDB trial, if Low was supposedly the "mirror image” or the figurative "Siamese twin” of Najib.

He said it was possible to charge Low in absentia or even when he is not in Malaysia, based on the local anti-corruption law.

At one point, the lawyer remarked using a Malay phrase that meant as long as it is Najib, it is all wrong.

"It shows he was targeted because whenever it comes to him, ‘Asalkan Najib, semua salah’.”

Wan Azwan Aiman was arguing that the prosecution had taken a different approach when it did not consider that Najib may have been just a public servant carrying out instructions in his pre-prime minister days when 1MDB’s predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority raised RM5 billion in Islamic bonds.

Wan Azwan Aiman contrasted this to how the prosecution had described Najib’s then principal private secretary Datuk Azlin Alias as having been unlikely to defy the then prime minister’s instructions. The prosecution had argued that senior 1MDB officials believed Azlin to have been conveying Najib’s instructions.

He also challenged the prosecution’s argument that Azlin could not have disobeyed Najib as he was a public officer.

"That is a broad general sweeping statement, because I’m sure the MACC prosecuted countless government officials for abuse of power.

"They have their own agency, they can act on their own volition. I’m not saying Datuk Azlin is complicit in any way, I don’t want to stand here defaming the dead, but the fact is it’s not rooted in reality for Datuk Azlin or any public servant for that matter could not defy instructions from superiors even if it’s illegal,” he said.

Najib’s lead defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah argued that his client is innocent, and claimed that the prosecution has not shown how Low was the "mirror image” of Najib in the scheme to steal 1MDB money.

"I close this submission, in light of what I’ve said, that the actions of Datuk Seri Najib have been more consistent with innocence rather than with guilt, even in areas where Yang Arif may think the actions may be clumsy, but nevertheless it is not a criminal act,” he said.

"While Jho Low opens accounts overseas across the globe, buys properties all over the place, if he is the mirror image of Datuk Seri Najib, Datuk Seri Najib would equally have the account overseas.

"Why would he take money from here and bring it across the globe and bring it back to Jalan Raja Chulan, AmIslamic Bank?” he said when questioning why Najib would have had funds taken from 1MDB to be sent overseas before having it put back in his bank account in Malaysia.

Earlier, Shafee tried to counter the prosecution’s description of 1MDB as having a top-down approach where Najib allegedly called the shots, arguing instead that the Finance Ministry-owned 1MDB instead operated like any other company and that Najib was merely representing the Finance Ministry as the shareholder.

Shafee said Najib did not appoint "idiots” to run 1MDB, noting that the board members and management members were highly qualified but had claimed to have just followed orders without checking with Najib to confirm if those instructions on 1MDB – via individuals such Low and Azlin – came from him.

"We have umpteen numbers of prosecution witnesses, not one of them said I asked Datuk Seri Najib. Nobody checked with Datuk Seri Najib. Is that possible?” Shafee asked.

Shafee argued that the prosecution’s witnesses who testified against Najib cannot be believed and claimed that some of those in the 1MDB management – such as its former CEOs Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi and Mohd Hazem Abd Rahman, former general counsel Jasmine Loo and former CFO Azmi Tahir – should have been charged.

"There was no evidence to suggest that Datuk Seri Najib instructed all these illegal doings in 1MDB to be undertaken so that he can benefit from the money that they have stolen,” he said.

While saying that Najib "has never said he did not know Jho Low”, Shafee said Low had managed to do things ordinary people could not do and that Najib did meet the late Saudi ruler King Abdullah and that political donation was discussed during the meeting.

Shafee also urged the High Court to consider other matters that he said would not be consistent with showing Najib’s guilt.

"They are more consistent with the fact that he did not know the sources of the money and he had always believed this money were donations.

"And his behaviour when receiving this money and spending it – it’s easy for people to say, ‘see you say it’s not personal, but when you spend politically, you benefit because you remain as PM’.

"Yes, true, but why would a man who stole money from a government entity, his own entity, steal money in the billions and spend it openly by signing cheques that ended up with RM300 million odd, openly,” he said, alluding to the spending of the money which entered Najib’s private bank account through cheques instead of cash.

"The openness of Datuk Seri Najib in dealing with the funds indicates clearly that he didn’t have the guilty intention, namely the knowledge that these are illegal proceeds of a crime, but rather he had always thought this money was in fact emanating from donations from Saudi Arabia.”

Ultimately, Shafee urged the High Court to acquit and discharge Najib of all the four power abuse charges in the 1MDB trial by saying these charges were "defective”, and said this would then result in the collapse of the entire case as the 21 money laundering charges against Najib hinged or depended on the four power abuse charges.

Trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah is to deliver his decision on October 30 on whether Najib should enter his defence against the 25 charges in the 1MDB trial or be acquitted.