Former President Abdulla Yameen stated today that well-wishers will give money to a sitting President, and accepting that money is not an issue as long as no specific undue favor is provided in return.

Yameen made this statement during the final hearing of the trial against him alleging that he accepted USD 1 million as a bribe for the lease of R. Fuggiri and laundered that money.

In his defense, Yameen has been maintaining that the USD 1 million involved in this case was money acquired by exchanging Rufiyaa received from various sources. Therefore, the prosecution has been questioning how he obtained such a large amount of money while serving as President, given that engaging in business is prohibited.

At today's hearing held to deliver closing arguments, Yameen stated that even if he did not actively engage in business, income could be earned by leasing properties and through other means as well. Furthermore, Yameen stated that financial disclosures would show that he held a significant amount of money even prior to assuming the presidency.

Additionally, he stated that while serving as President, well-wishers who deem him capable of serving a second term provide assistance in various ways. Noting that money received in this manner is funds received politically because he is a politician, Yameen stated that not all such money is required to be handed over to the political party.

The former president, who governed for five years, stated that giving and accepting money provided by well-wishers is not something prohibited, and an issue arises only if an act facilitating corruption is committed in return for money given in that manner.

Responding to questions raised by the prosecution regarding his keeping cash at home instead of depositing it in a bank, he stated that keeping money at home is not prohibited. Yameen also stated that since his residence is a secured place, he does not view keeping money there as an issue.

In the Fuggiri case as well, the main witnesses against Yameen were former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb and former MD of MMPRC Abdulla Ziyath. Yameen questioned the credibility of their testimony.

Yameen stated that the deal made by the state providing leniency to Adeeb was done to obtain statements from Adeeb against him in this case.

Yameen's lawyers also raised several questions regarding the testimony of Adeeb and Ziyath. In this regard, lawyer Dr. Mohamed Jameel Ahmed stated that Adeeb and Ziyath are a "machine" used by the state to fabricate evidence against Yameen.

Noting that the Supreme Court had also ruled that both individuals are corrupt sinners (faasiq) and hold animosity toward Yameen, Jameel stated that Yameen cannot be convicted based on any weight given to their testimony.

Jameel pointed out that the actual culprits in the MMPRC corruption case were Adeeb and Ziyath, who had confessed to the crime, and that the state had freed both of them. Instead, Jameel stated that Yameen is being subjected to political persecution.

Jameel stated that these charges are an unconstitutional act carried out through the state to politically isolate Yameen.

Yameen's defense lawyer Hamza Latheef stated that Adeeb and Ziyath gave testimony in this case while an agreement existed between them and the state, a circumstance in which they were receiving various benefits and leniencies to the extent of the state's satisfaction. Hamza questioned whether the testimony of individuals in such a situation could be fair.

According to Hamza, if any wrong was committed in the lease of Fuggiri, Adeeb and Ziyath have confessed to it. Hamza stated that the state has no evidence linking Yameen to any matter related to that transaction.

He stated that a dollar transaction that took place long after the Fuggiri lease transaction cannot be linked to it, and therefore, the state has failed to prove that it was money obtained through a crime. He stated that when it cannot be proven that the money was acquired through a crime, the elements of the offense of money laundering cannot be proven.

Hamza also raised questions over the state's withdrawal of charges against Krik Riza, whom the state accused of being the bribe giver while claiming Yameen accepted a bribe. The charges against two Sun companies for facilitating money laundering were not proven. The state has also decided not to appeal that case.

Therefore, Hamza raised questions regarding the state's intention, as it continues to pursue only Yameen's case while letting off other individuals accused of being involved in the matter.

With the prosecution presenting its closing statement yesterday as well, the judicial hearings have now concluded at this point. The presiding judge stated that the verdict session for the case will be held on the 29th of this month.

In addition to this case, the case of corruption in the lease of V. Aarah is also ongoing at the Criminal Court. The trial currently underway follows the High Court's order to re-examine the case after quashing the Criminal Court's previous conviction.