save malaysia!

Evidence that Najib received 1MDB funds was ignored, probe panelists say

savemalaysia
Publish date: Tue, 15 May 2018, 01:36 PM

KUALA LUMPUR, May 15 ― The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) found evidence in late 2015 that RM42 million was transferred from a former subsidiary of state fund 1MDB into an account of then prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, but its recommendation for further investigation was rejected by the attorney general, a member of a panel that reviewed the commission’s case files told Reuters.

Najib, who was ousted in a shock election loss on May 9, has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with alleged graft involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), and insisted US$681 million of funds deposited in his personal bank account were a donation from a Saudi royal. The US$10.6 million would be in addition to that sum. 

Newly elected Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was sworn in on Thursday, has vowed to investigate the 1MDB scandal and take action against those who may have abetted or benefited from corruption at the fund. At least six countries, including the United States and Switzerland, are investigating claims that US$4.5 billion was allegedly siphoned off from 1MDB.

In an interview with Reuters, panel member Lim Chee Wee said then attorney-general, Mohamed Apandi Ali, had been presented with evidence by MACC at the end of 2015 that Najib had received the US$10.6 million from 1MDB unit SRC International.

 

Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, who was replaced as attorney general yesterday, declined to probe further, Lim said.

“AG refused to investigate further despite evidence suggesting that Najib received directly or indirectly RM42 million from SRC,” Lim said, using the acronym for the attorney-general.

Mohamed Apandi declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. MACC did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

Compelling evidence

Lim, and another panel member, P. Sundramoorthy, a criminologist from the Malaysian Science University, also said that Mohamed Apandi declined repeated requests from MACC to seek legal assistance from foreign governments to trace missing funds from 1MDB. Lim said that they were unable to follow the money trail because it went outside the country.

“We kept telling the AG...please make mutual legal assistance from other jurisdictions to find out the money trail in those jurisdictions. We knew the movement of money in Malaysia, but once it leaves Malaysia, we didn't know where the money went,” Lim said.

“Based on the panel review, we felt the case should not have been closed as there was compelling information to say that the case could be further investigated,” Sundramoorthy said.

However, he added that he could not recall the amount that MACC suspected Najib had received from SRC.

Neither Najib nor his spokesman could be reached by phone to comment for this report.

Najib’s lawyer told Channel News Asia in January 2016 that Najib denies receiving the RM42 million from SRC into his personal bank account.

1MDB did not respond to a request for comment.

Lim, a lawyer, was part of an eight-member panel tasked in early 2016 with reviewing investigations by the MACC into a reported transfer of US$681 million into Najib's bank account, as well as the transactions linked to SRC. MACC appoints such panels when its recommendations have been rejected by the attorney general as part of a review process.

SRC is no longer a unit of 1MDB. It now reports to the finance ministry.

Put on leave

Newly elected Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday that Mohamad Apandi had been put on leave and the solicitor-general would take over his duties.

Both Lim and Sundramoorthy declined to go into specific details regarding the case files, as the documents are protected under Malaysia's Official Secrets Act.

But the panel was given detailed briefings and full access to the MACC files, they said.

“The biggest disappointment to us was Apandi,” said Lim. “MACC was very professional, they did a very good job. But their hands were tied by the AG,” he said.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that about US$4.5 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB, which was founded by Najib. The department has filed civil lawsuits seeking to seize about US$1.7 billion worth of 1MDB-linked assets, and is also pursuing a criminal probe.

The DOJ has not named any targets of the probe but the civil lawsuits have named Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low, and Najib's stepson Riza Aziz among the alleged beneficiaries of misappropriated 1MDB funds. Both have denied wrongdoing.

A person described in the US lawsuits as “Malaysian Official 1” was said to have received more than US$1 billion in 1MDB funds, some of which was used to buy jewelry for the person's wife. US and Malaysian sources have said “Malaysian Official 1” refers to Najib.

Najib has denied any wrongdoing and said in 2016 that the Malaysian government will cooperate with US investigations. ― Reuters 

https://www.malaymail.com/s/1631081/evidence-that-najib-received-1mdb-funds-was-ignored-probe-panelists-say

 

Discussions
Be the first to like this. Showing 3 of 3 comments

ks55

Do you think Mohamed Apadi have committed an offence under Sec 217 Penal Code.


Public servant disobeying a direction of law with intent to save
person from punishment, or property from forfeiture

217. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.





If any part of document relevant to prove an offence went missing, willfully destroyed or altered, the public officer will be liable for an offence under Sec 201 or Sec 204 PC.


Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it, to screen the offender

201. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to screen the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention or knowledge gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine or with both.


Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence

204. Whoever secretes or destroys any document which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence before a Court, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

2018-05-15 14:41

ks55

Why AG of yesterday can't make up a case against Najib for 2 long years?
Whereas Tun M able to build up a case against Najib within 2 days in office?


Dr M: Case being built against Najib, can be charged 'within short while'

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/05/15/dr-m-case-being-built-against-najib/#OqKVj38813tOUDtv.99

2018-05-15 15:17

ks55

Suppression of evidence?
Failure to take action bound by law?

2018-05-15 15:20

Post a Comment