Systematic path to reclaim misused public funds, sending a strong message against corruption while safeguarding Malaysia’s national investment funds.

Audits and Forensic Accounting: Comprehensive audits can be requested to trace funds. If FashionValet was involved, detailed forensic accounting would be necessary to establish any suspicious transactions or misuses of Khazanah or PNB funds.

The AGC might also involve other government and financial institutions to tighten corporate governance practices within these entities. This helps ensure that similar vulnerabilities do not occur in future investments by Khazanah, PNB, or other national funds.

If assets are found internationally, the AGC can collaborate with foreign authorities under international treaties and agreements like the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) to recover and repatriate assets. This could involve extradition requests if individuals fled Malaysia.

Asset Freezing Orders: If there’s a high risk of assets being moved or hidden, the AGC can apply for a court order to freeze assets. This would prevent any further dissipation of funds or assets by those suspected in the case.

Depending on the findings, the AGC could pursue both criminal and civil cases. Criminal proceedings might involve charges such as breach of trust, fraud, or money laundering under Malaysian law. Civil lawsuits, on the other hand, could be filed to directly seek asset recovery or damages from individuals or entities involved.

The AGC would first need to gather comprehensive evidence. This involves working with investigative bodies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to trace any misuse of funds or assets. Forensic accountants could track transactions, looking for signs of money laundering, misappropriation, or fraud.

Trustee Act 1949 and Common Law Fiduciary Duties
- Although Khazanah is a sovereign wealth fund rather than a traditional trust, its directors and officers have fiduciary responsibilities similar to those of trustees. If they failed in this duty, there might be grounds to allege a breach of trust under common law, especially if it’s shown they acted recklessly or irresponsibly with public funds.

Anti-Corruption: If corruption, abuse of position, or kickbacks were involved, the MACC Act 2009 would apply. Section 17A of the MACC Act makes commercial organizations liable for corruption unless they can demonstrate adequate procedures to prevent it.

Fashion Valet, an online business focused on fashion, had every reason to thrive during the COVID-19 lockdowns. With physical retail severely restricted, consumer behavior naturally shifted toward online shopping, where demand for convenience and safety made e-commerce an ideal solution. Lockdowns led people to spend more time at home, often leading to an uptick in online browsing and purchases as individuals sought to adapt to new lifestyle needs or simply engage in retail therapy during an uncertain period. This shift was evident across various industries where online businesses saw increased traffic, suggesting Fashion Valet, as an e-commerce fashion retailer, should have been no exception.

Moreover, the fashion market adapted to new demands, with businesses pivoting towards comfortable, casual, and home-oriented attire. Online retailers were well-positioned to offer these categories without the overhead costs of physical stores. Fashion Valet's existing digital infrastructure should have allowed it to capture this market shift effectively. Additionally, with platforms offering fast delivery and easy returns, customers could confidently purchase clothes without in-store visits.

Given these factors, Fashion Valet had multiple opportunities to leverage its online presence. If reports suggested a contrary outcome, it likely points to operational, marketing, or strategic issues specific to the company, rather than an inherent challenge faced by online fashion retail in general during the pandemic.

Public Sector vs. Private Sector Accountability: Unlike the private sector, where market forces discipline failure through loss of profits or jobs, public institutions like Khazanah must demonstrate higher accountability standards to justify their use of taxpayer funds. Continuing to reward the top brass in the face of missteps establishes a dangerous precedent and suggests that poor performance lacks consequences.

Freezing all potential suspects' bank accounts linked to the substantial loss is a pragmatic and ethically sound response. It aligns with governance best practices, meets compliance requirements, and demonstrates Khazanah’s dedication to prudent asset management and risk mitigation.

Reliance on Public Funds and Accountability: Khazanah’s portfolio is financed by taxpayer money, which emphasizes its duty to operate with fiscal responsibility and transparency. A sizable loss without clear justification might suggest that there were gaps in due diligence, market insight, or operational oversight on the board’s part.

Strategic Responsibility of Management: The responsibility lies with Khazanah’s board and management to ensure that their investments align with their mandate for value generation and strategic growth. With a substantial loss on record, it would be reasonable to expect some acknowledgment of oversight issues, as well as preventive measures to avoid similar occurrences in the future. Their emphasis on the “end of holding period” without mention of possible missteps in investment assessment or execution may come across as sidestepping accountability.

Lack of Transparency Regarding Investment Failures: Sovereign wealth funds like Khazanah operate using public funds, so transparency is crucial. Khazanah’s statement does not provide a detailed account of why the investment failed or what factors led to FashionValet’s financial troubles. The lack of an in-depth explanation could reflect poor accountability to stakeholders.

Urgent Need for Funds: The announcement mentions that FashionValet was in urgent need of funds to continue operating, indicating potential financial distress. If this distress was recent, then Khazanah’s decision could arguably be a necessary but unfortunate exit. However, if this distress was long-standing, it raises questions about whether Khazanah properly monitored the investment and intervened promptly to either guide FashionValet or exit earlier.

Timing and Justification of Divestment: Khazanah stated that it divested from FashionValet due to the investment reaching the end of its holding period. However, a large RM43.9 million loss suggests that the investment’s performance was problematic well before reaching maturity. The "end of holding period" explanation may seem like a deflection from discussing specific issues related to performance monitoring and strategic decision-making during the investment term.

For transparency, Khazanah’s board could face stronger oversight, reforms, or even legal action if there’s evidence of willful or gross mismanagement.

Independent Forensic Audit: An independent review could be requested to identify if there was genuine oversight failure, negligence, or any other malfeasance in the handling of this investment.

Legal Recourse and Investigation
To ensure accountability:
- Auditor General and PAC Inquiry: These entities can review whether Khazanah’s board acted in compliance with its mandate and whether there was any misuse of public funds.

Civil Lawsuits for Negligence or Breach of Duty
- If shareholders or other stakeholders suffer due to the board’s negligent management, they may be able to pursue a civil lawsuit, claiming that directors breached their duties under common law principles. Stakeholders could seek compensation or even injunctive relief to prevent similar future mismanagement.

Public Governance, Accountability, and Transparency Laws
- Government-Linked Investment Company (GLIC) and Sovereign Fund Obligations: GLICs like Khazanah have mandates to act transparently and responsibly. Failure to fulfill these can lead to public scrutiny and calls for reform. Although no specific law targets poor governance in GLICs, public authorities, including the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), can initiate inquiries and make recommendations for accountability.

Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)
- Corporate Misconduct: If any form of fraud, insider trading, or unethical practices were involved, Khazanah’s directors could be subject to SC investigations. Misrepresentation of a company's financial health, hiding key information, or deliberately causing losses could all be grounds for legal action.

Section 409: If proven that someone in a managerial position was involved in criminal breach of trust, this section imposes stricter penalties for CBT committed by a public servant or agent, which includes company directors or agents dealing with property on behalf of another.

Penal Code: Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT)
- Section 405: If directors or officers are found to have dishonestly misappropriated, converted, or used the company’s assets, they may be charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Penal Code.

Insolvent Trading: If the company had been trading while insolvent, this could indicate that directors breached their duty under Section 539 of the Companies Act. It could lead to personal liability if they allowed or continued trading despite the financial distress.

Duty of Care, Skill, and Diligence: Directors must perform their roles with due care, skill, and diligence. If they fail in these duties, especially by causing significant financial loss, shareholders or stakeholders might be able to take legal action.

Cases involving possible mismanagement, lack of accountability, or breaches of trust by board members or management of sovereign wealth funds could fall under several legal frameworks, especially when there is an implication of failing in fiduciary duties or potential misconduct.

The failure of the fashion investment should act as a wake-up call, driving the board to implement a performance-linked evaluation for executive pay. Khazanah's top leadership must face consequences—not rewards—if public trust in its management and investments is to be maintained.

while the shameless chairman, CEO and admin board continue to take home T1% income.......and T2-15 will get punished by subsidy withdrawal

Legal and Moral Obligations: There are legal and moral obligations under the Corporate Governance Code and Anti-Corruption Act that bind leaders to act against fraudulent activity. Ignoring potential fraud or scams, even if indirectly, could violate these standards and set a dangerous precedent.

Disgrace and shame to the country and hurt the goodwill - Public Interest and Financial Impact: Much like the 1MDB case, which affected Malaysia’s international reputation and financial stability, failing to address the FV scam could have severe consequences, potentially impacting stakeholders, investors, and the broader public. If losses go unreported or uninvestigated, it signals that those at the helm are indifferent to potential misappropriations or financial risks within institutions that significantly influence Malaysia’s economy.

Any account got frozen yet?

BAT mobile is my favourite...lai lai lai

About RM44 mil was needed to cover "In the financial year ended Dec 31, 2022 (FY2022), it incurred a loss-after-tax of RM34.51 million " and BOD fees

The major GLICs' top executives often fall within a total remuneration range of MYR 5-10 million per annum, depending on organization size and specific roles.

Yet, these major GLICs' top executives often fall within a total remuneration range of MYR 5-10 million per annum, depending on organization size and specific roles. And they go around fly around on company - not paying a single cent on petrol. The majority of B40 & M40 bodoh.

These major GLICs' top executives often fall within a total remuneration range of MYR 5-10 million per annum, depending on organization size and specific roles.

To hold Khazanah's leadership accountable for losses in their 2024 fashion investment, it’s essential to critically examine both performance and responsibility. Here’s why the Chairman, CEO, and board should face consequences rather than receive top 1% income:

1. Fiduciary Responsibility: Khazanah's executive team is entrusted with the stewardship of public assets, a duty that demands high standards of diligence. If an investment in fashion led to losses, it raises questions about their investment strategies, oversight, and due diligence practices. Accountability should match these responsibilities.

2. Public Trust and Stewardship of Public Funds: Khazanah is a sovereign wealth fund backed by public resources, intended to yield long-term benefits for the Malaysian people. When investments fall short, particularly in volatile or experimental sectors like fashion, the leaders should demonstrate accountability. Rewarding high salaries amidst such losses can erode public trust.

3. Questionable Industry Decision: Fashion is a high-risk sector, with rapid cycles and intense competition, requiring deep sector knowledge. The leadership team must bear responsibility if they failed to adequately assess these risks or ignored expert advice. A strategy that disregards well-known market risks suggests poor judgment or negligence, which should lead to repercussions, not rewards.

4. Setting a Standard for Governance: Good governance requires consequences for missteps. Khazanah’s compensation structure should be merit-based, rewarding success and penalizing failures to align leadership incentives with performance. Top 1% income without corresponding outcomes contradicts best practices in governance and undermines the integrity of Malaysia’s financial institutions.

5. Public Sector vs. Private Sector Accountability: Unlike the private sector, where market forces discipline failure through loss of profits or jobs, public institutions like Khazanah must demonstrate higher accountability standards to justify their use of taxpayer funds. Continuing to reward the top brass in the face of missteps establishes a dangerous precedent and suggests that poor performance lacks consequences.

The failure of the fashion investment should act as a wake-up call, driving the board to implement a performance-linked evaluation for executive pay. Khazanah's top leadership must face consequences—not rewards—if public trust in its management and investments is to be maintained.

........while the shameless chairman, CEO and admin board continue wot take home T1% income

While both flags symbolize connections beyond Malaysia’s borders, the Palestinian flag’s display carries more weight in terms of political risk, public perception, and potential legal consequences. These factors make it a more hazardous symbol in terms of public safety, national cohesion, and diplomatic relations, especially when compared to the Chinese flag.

Sslee, you really make a lot with recent bull run of Jtiasa. Well done

So, which one put the people at risk of being attacked or targeted by Israel? Endangering the people? Which one spoil the people's business? Which is bad?

As a T1 owning few hundred million, I can tell - I have more than all my T2-15 friends have in combination

Spare the T2-15. Data shows that the top 1% holds more wealth than the entire middle class combined.

Public support for Palestine in highly visible ways can occasionally lead to societal tensions, affecting local businesses or creating an environment of hostility for communities with diverse backgrounds and allegiances. This atmosphere can be potentially harmful, especially in a multicultural setting like Malaysia, where such displays may inadvertently alienate certain groups. The Chinese flag, associated more with trade and established diplomacy, doesn’t usually provoke these tensions or raise concerns of communal strain.

The display of the Palestinian flag can occasionally intersect with laws pertaining to public order and national security, especially if it’s associated with rallies or events perceived as “politically charged.” This could increase the likelihood of legal action, where authorities might see the display as an act that disrupts national peace or public safety. On the other hand, the Chinese flag lacks this association with grassroots political protest and typically doesn’t provoke such responses.

The Palestinian cause, while receiving support on certain platforms, is controversial in the context of Malaysia’s foreign policy balance. Open displays of the Palestinian flag could be interpreted by other countries as a form of alignment that may impact Malaysia’s neutral diplomatic stance, especially with nations aligned differently on the issue. The Chinese flag, representing an official state recognized by Malaysia, does not trigger the same diplomatic concerns or risks of foreign backlash.

The issue of Palestine, while supported by some groups, is polarizing. Displaying the Palestinian flag can inadvertently stoke divisions or create perceived alignment with radical positions, which may cause backlash or hostility from segments of society that view it as antagonistic. In contrast, the Chinese flag typically doesn’t carry the same implications of inter-community conflict within Malaysia, as it represents an economic and diplomatic partner rather than a direct cause for ideological contention.

Displaying the Palestinian flag is often viewed as an implicit support for the Palestinian cause. Given the heightened geopolitical tensions surrounding the issue, such a display can attract unwanted attention from authorities concerned with potential radicalization, support for external conflicts, or affiliations with organizations deemed as security threats. Meanwhile, the Chinese flag, representing an established and diplomatically engaged nation, is less likely to evoke such concerns in a governmental or security context.