The tenth accuse in the treasury bond case, Ajahn Punchihewa seek court order to stop proceeding charges against him by the Attorney General Department.Punchihewa has stated that he keeps vital information regarding investigations over the bond scam. The accused says he had information about a penthouse apartment in Singapore valued at Singapore Dollars 7.6 million, occupied by the family of Arjun Aloysius, which was purchased by a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.The tenth accused, Ajahn Gardiye Punchihewa, had filed a writ petition in the Court of Appeal citing 16 respondents including the Attorney General, the director of the CID, Inspector General, and nine other suspects who were named as accused in the indictment.The petitioner had stated that the decision to initiate action against him before the High Court by the Attorney General was unreasonable.
Therefore, he sought an interim relief be given until the final determination of this petition suspending the inclusion of his name on the indictment, and charges against him contained in the indictment.
He also sought interim relief to restrain commencing of any proceedings against him in the High Court and taking any measures to extradite him over the case.
The petitioner in his petition has also requested a final order in way of writ of certiorari and prohibition to issue a mandate quashing the charges against him pertaining to the charges stipulated in the indictment and to prohibit respondents from commencing further proceedings against him based on the indictment. In his petition, Ajahn Punchihewa had comprehensively informed the court that he had no connection with the matters that happened during the time that the alleged bond auction had taken place on February 27, 2015.
He had stated that he was appointed as a director of the board of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd on February 18, 2015, on the request of Arjun Aloysius.
However, he states that he did not participate in, and is not aware of any meeting of the board of Directors of PTL, whether formal or informal, during the month of February 2015.
And the very first meeting to which the petitioner was invited was for the month of March 2015. Furthermore, he had not been part of any decision making whatsoever of PTL until 13th March 2015, when the petitioner attended a board meeting for the very first time.
The petitioner said that he had started gathering relevant information in order to assist the CID, after he received notices on April 14, 2019, from the Chief Magistrate’s Court over the inquiry to appear before the CID on June 26, 2019.