THERE are eight compelling “angles” for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate government-linked investment companies (GLICs) Khazanah Nasional Bhd and Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) for their fire sale of early e-commerce pioneer and Malaysian start-up poster-child FashionValet Sdn Bhd (FV) for a mere RM3.1 mil.

Finfluencer Post Aliff Ahmad (@Alturkistiano) mooted such idea on the X platform as Information Minister Fahmi Fadzil called on both GLICs to explain losses from their initial RM47 mil investment in FV (RM27 mil by Khazanah and RM20 mil by PNB).

For the record, FV has received massive public backlash on social media after tech newsletter Asia Tech Review exposed last September that Khazanah has sold its stake in the loss making FV to local investment firm NXBT Partners.

Below are the eight “angles: that Aliff reckoned MACC can pursue to get to the bottom of both GLICs’ investments in FV.

Angle #1: How could PNB-Khazanah be investing in a company that had been losing money? Who among them was “deal setter”? Were there sweeteners involved? Was there any consultant?

Angle #2: How could the BOD (board of directors) of FV which included PNB-Khazanah representatives have allowed Vivy (entrepreneur, influencer and FV founder Vivy Yusof) and her husband to receive an interim dividend from 30 Maple Sdn Bhd before FV bought 30 Maple? Isn’t that so obvious?

Editor’s Note: FV bought into the dUCk brand (owned by 30 Maple) which is renowned for its contemporary hijab scarves/modest fashion for modern Muslim women in December 2018 so soon after both GLICs having invested in FV in March 2018 (the dUCK Group is part of FV itself).

Angle #3: How could the BOD of FV which included PNB-Khazanah representatives have agreed to buy 30 Maple that also belonged to Vivy and her husband at a very high price? This is considering that by then the dUCK brand would only have prospered after FV received investment funds from PNB-Khazanah.

Angle #4: How could the BOD of FV which included representatives of PNB-Khazanah have remained silent when it ‘wrote off’ RM2.4 mil to create the FV website/system? Who was the vendor/contractor?

Angle #5: How could the BOD of FV which included PNB-Khazanah representatives continue to turn a blind eye by continuously ‘topping up’ their investment when the company was suffering losses every year?

Angle #6: How could the BOD of FV which included PNB-Khazanah representatives be silent while watching the company’s founder enjoyed an elitist life or pretended to be rich when the company they invested in kept incurring loses?

Angle #7: You may also wish to investigate who was the contractor/vendor behind the FV website write off and who did the renovation for FV’s boutiques in shopping malls? Was there any ‘cashout project’ through these contractors/vendors?

Angle #8: FV was originally a fashion website or digital platform. Investments were supposed to be made in technology companies not fashion brands. If you want to invest in a brand, you must as well invest in another brand.

How then could the BOD of FV which included PNB-Khazanah representatives have agreed to open a boutique? Isn’t opening a physical boutique incur big spending? – Nov 1, 2024

https://focusmalaysia.my/8-reasons-for-macc-to-probe-khazanah-pnbs-rm43-9m-investment-losses-in-fashionvalet/