THE Kuala Lumpur High Court heard a billionaire's lawyer tear into a key witness’s testimony citing on many occasions leading to his admission that no monies were transferred to the defendant at any time.
The court continued hearing the key witness’s testimony today in a high-profile civil action brought by 10 foreign investors and two former employees against Malaysian industrialist and philanthropist, Datuk Vinod Sekhar..
Under cross-examination, the plaintiff’s primary witness confirmed that he had been nominated to testify on behalf of the remaining claimants. However, counsel for the defendants challenged the legitimacy of his authority to speak for others and his knowledge of the disputed investments.
The sole witness admited no monies were transferred to the Malaysian conglomerate Petra Group Chairman under purported investment claims from 20 years ago.
British consultant from Dubai, Graham David Bell, 66, —the sole witness who declared that he represents 11 other claimants —was cross examined on the stand today in relation to the purported investments made into Petra Equities Sdn Bhd, between 2004 and 2007.
Bell, the managing partner of Bridge Partners FZE, made the admission acknowledging that there was no proof before the court of any representations made by Sekhar to him or to any of the eleven other plaintiffs.
When Senior Counsel, Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam, put to him that no evidence had been presented to show Sekhar had made any investment-related representations, and that in some cases he was not even shareholder. Bell answered, “Agree.”
He also conceded that he had no personal knowledge of discussions, dealings or transactions between Sekhar and the other claimants. Furthermore, he confirmed he had not witnessed, nor was he aware of, any alleged persuasion by the defendant.
Rajan then addressed Bell’s own financial claim, pointing to Bell’s allegation in the statement of claim that he had transferred US$250,000 (approximately RM950,000) to Sekhar on 3 June 2002. Bell admitted in court that no documentation or proof had been submitted to corroborate that assertion and that no transfer was actually made.
“We took the position that he has no personal knowledge to these alleged transactions,” stated Rajan to The Vibes, arguing that the witness lacked direct involvement in key dealings, transactions or even discussions central to the case.
A heated exchange also ensued between the Senior Counsel and the plaintiff’s lawyer, Colin Andrew Pereira, on objections raised on several elements of the witness’s testimony, submitting that the content went beyond what was pleaded in the original Statement of Claim. The court was asked to strike out those portions, which the defence described as “very pertinent” yet improperly introduced.
The judge then, raising his voice, sternly told Coiln to be seated.
In earlier proceedings, the plaintiffs had sought to amend their pleadings mid-trial, but the application was denied. The court also ordered the Plaintiffs to bear the associated costs.
On the first day of the trial, reports indicate that Bell’s personal investment amounted to “less than USD250,000” a far cry from the amount claimed by the group, placing him among the supposed smaller individual investors participating in the action.
One of the plaintiffs, a former employee, Andrew Murray Watson was shown to have been terminated and signed a settlement agreement more than a decade ago. Graham Bell conceded he was aware but was asked to read out in court the settled lines from the same document.
Meanwhile, sources have told The Vibes.com that more offers of settlement were requested to his counsel. However, the billionaire rejected them all as he said that he must clear himself of these "ridiculous accusations and obvious attempts at extortion.”
These claimed investments were allegedly made some 20 years ago before the global financial crisis.
The trial continues tomorrow presided by Y. A. Datuk Muhammad Adam@Edward Abdullah. - October 7, 2025
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
