Category Archives: business

Why auditors can’t guarantee there was no fraud at 1MDB


May 25, 2015

Why auditors can’t guarantee there was no fraud at 1MDB

by THE EDGE MALAYSIA

Published: 25 May 2015 7:00 AM@www.themalaysianinisder.com

The backers of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) have argued that because international accounting firms like KPMG and Deloitte have signed off all 1MDB’s accounts from FY2010 to FY2014, this meant no money has gone missing and no fraud has occurred.

Mm_Cover_NEW_1068.inddThis argument has been used to justify the not-so-eloquent silence of the management and board of directors of 1MDB, who have refused to respond to questions posed to them about various transactions and the movements of billions of ringgit.

They hide behind that argument despite the fact that 1MDB has run into serious cash-flow problems and can no longer service its debts, and so many questions have been raised about the whereabouts and nature of the so-called Available-For-Sale Investments valued at RM13.38 billion in its accounts for financial year ended March 31, 2014.

Critics of 1MDB have been asked to back off and let the Auditor-General complete his work to review the audit of 1MDB.

The argument that because 1MDB’s accounts have been signed off by auditors meant that no fraud has occurred and that money was not missing is flawed. It shows that these people do not know what they are talking about.

They have badly misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the role of external auditors and they do not understand the meaning of an auditor’s report when the auditors sign off the financial statement of a company.

There are no auditors in this world who will agree that their signing off on an account can in any way or form be interpreted to mean that they confirm or guarantee that the accounts are completely true, accurate and do not contain any misstatements, by fraud or error.

The International Standards for Auditing guidelines for auditors state that the external auditor is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial statements, taken as a whole, are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error.

That reasonable assurance is based on the external auditor trusting that the management and board of a company have carried out their fiduciary duties and were not involved in any fraud or have concealed any fraud.

Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that material misstatement may not be detected, even when the audit is planned and performed in accordance with international accounting standards.

The risk of fraud is higher than those of error because fraud usually involves sophisticated and carefully organised schemes designed to conceal it.

Therefore, it is not the role of an external auditor to determine whether fraud has actually occurred. That is the responsibility of the country’s criminal and legal system.

Malaysian_financial_scandals-graphic-240515-the_edgeIndeed, auditors call the discrepancy between what the public expects and what auditors do as an “expectations gap”.

Let us now take a closer look at Deloitte’s audit report issued to 1MDB on November 5, 2014, for the financial year ended March 31, 2014. The fact that it was issued more than seven months after the year-end in itself should raise concerns.

Para 2: The directors of the company are responsible for the preparation of these financial statements so as to give a true and fair view. The directors are also responsible for such internal control as the directors determine what is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Para 3: Our (Deloitte) responsibility is to EXPRESS AN OPINION on these financial statements based on our audit… and perform the audit to obtain REASONABLE assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

The above remarks by Deloitte is a standard template statement issued by auditors to most companies. What is important to note are the following:

1. The directors of 1MDB are ultimately responsible for the accounts in so far as they give a true and fair view. The directors are also responsible for internal controls that are necessary to enable the financial statements to be free from misstatements, whether due to fraud or error. This is NOT the responsibility of the auditor.

2. The auditors only express an opinion that they, as external auditors, have done what is necessary to obtain REASONABLE assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

3. Critically, the external auditors DO NOT express an opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls.

In short, while auditors should be able to detect defective keeping of accounting records, they cannot detect falsified accounting documents. And neither can they question management decisions on, say, an investment that it made.

The questions asked of 1MDB mainly relate to the effectiveness of internal controls and corporate governance:

– Who approved the agreements and the various payments made since 2009?

– Why were funds diverted from what they were approved for? Why was money sent to an account controlled by Jho Low?

– Why did 1MDB overpay for the power assets, the Penang land and the commissions to the bankers like Goldman Sachs?

– Who verified and agreed to pay the US$700 million to PetroSaudi, purportedly as settlement of a loan?

– Why was Jho Low giving instructions to the management on matters of 1MDB?

– Who agreed to the Aabar options and then agreed to a termination settlement that cost 1MDB US$1 billion?

All these major issues that have been raised are about internal controls, decision-making and corporate governance at 1MDB.

Deloitte, in their audit report, had clearly stated they are NOT expressing any opinion on the effectiveness of 1MDB’s internal controls.

So, please stop passing the buck to Deloitte or using the fact that it signed off on the accounts, to say that nothing wrong has happened and that everything at 1MDB is fine.

And since the auditor-general has merely been asked to audit the work of Deloitte, it is most likely the case that his mandate is no more than that of Deloitte.

It is clear. The board of directors is responsible in ensuring the accounts are true and fair. The board is responsible for internal controls to ensure there is no fraud.

The auditor only expresses a reasonable opinion. Nothing more.

Global_financial_scandals-graphic-240515-the_edge

The corporate sector, at home and around the world, is littered with many examples of corporate fraud that escaped the scrutiny of auditors. In a few cases, auditors were also culpable, if not outright complicit.

The largest corporate fraud ever in the world was US energy giant Enron, whose US$78 billion market value was wiped out in days. Former Enron President Jeff Skilling is still serving a 24-year jail term.

And its auditors, Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Four accounting firms in the world then, had to cease operations.

Bernard Madoff’s US$65 billion Ponzi scheme is evidence that funds under management, with third-party valuations by international institutions, may also be subject to misappropriations and fraud. Madoff is currently serving a 150-year sentence in prison.

An article was published in the November 20, 2012 issue of Forbes magazine, on how Hewlett-Packard (HP) lost US$5 billion on a US$11.1 billion acquisition.

HP said it had to write down the value of UK software company Autonomy because it was inflated through serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and disclosure failures.

That scam tainted all the auditors involved – Deloitte as the auditors for Autonomy and Ernst & Young, the auditors for HP – for not detecting the fraud.

Need we say more? – May 25, 2015.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/why-auditors-cannot-guarantee-there-was-no-fraud-at-1mdb#sthash.vdfOeUUZ.dpuf

TK Chua: My 11th Malaysia Plan


May 24, 2015

Phnom Penh

TK Chua: My 11th Malaysia Plan

http://www.malaysiakini.com

My question is, are we blind? We can’t see that people are made so often to queue up with pails and bottles for water trucks. We can’t see congestion and massive jams every day. We can’t see dilapidated flats and unhygienic living conditions everywhere. We can’t see half of the working population can’t afford decent housing.  We can’t see our education is not performing. We can’t see that the real income of the people is not growing, what more with more taxes and depreciating ringgit. But the irony is we have to wait for someone to write all these down and for our PM to read them out in the Parliament before we could pretend to know these are the important issues requiring attention. What a load of baloney.  –TK Chua

11th Malaysia Plan2Since the 11th Malaysia Plan was announced by the Prime Minister in Parliament on Thursday, there have been numerous comments and criticisms on the Plan.

Some said the Plan is a mere collection of ‘ideal state’ pronouncements; some said the projects and programmes in the Plan are mainly for the benefits of the cronies; some said it was more of a political statement, not an economic document since there are obvious exclusions which are irrational and illogical; and some have asked where are the money and other resources needed to implement the Plan coming from.

There are probably some truths in all of these criticisms and comments. As for me, the Five Year Development Plan as we know today has lost its lustre when compared with those of the bygone years of the 60s and 70s.

There are reasons for this. First, the world has changed, becoming more globalised, interconnected and unpredictable. Any event could trigger ramifications across the globe, rendering planning assumptions and forecasts useless. What more for a country like Malaysia, an economy that is very open and trade and foreign investment dependent?

Second, as time goes by, many have also become disillusioned with much of the grandeur stuff stated in our past development plans. Many of the objectives are either not achieved or totally hijacked toward attaining something else.

Hence, many marginalised Malaysians could no longer relate to or find meaning or attachment to the Plan any more. They find the opportunities and promises bypassing them. They find their needs denied in one plan after another.

On the contrary, they find the Goods and Services Tax (GST), 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC), and the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) with all their attendant problems and fiascoes have intruded into their life. Surely the people do not need a development plan to shoulder all the burdens but when it come to benefits, even repeated development plans have brought them only elusive dreams.

I think the best Malaysia Plan we can ever have today is a plan where we can identify changes and react to these changes quickly and robustly. If oil prices have collapsed, what flexibility and options does the government have other than imposing more taxes? If global growth has slowed, what viable alternatives do we have? If the value of ringgit has depreciated precipitously, do we know why and how to handle it going forward?

What reserves and capacity have we got to deal with continued security threats and kidnapping in Sabah and from other terrorist groups? I am aware of Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom), but is it effective?  What about the influx of boat people from Myanmar and Bangladesh now? Do we have clear ideas to deal with them?

These are all pertinent issues which will affect the vital interests of Malaysia and its people. But I don’t think we can ever write them out in development plans in concrete or predictable terms before they happen. I do not have to read the 11th Malaysia Plan to know that there are probably programmes and projects for water, electricity, roads, housing, public transport, environment preservation and protection, healthcare and education in it.

Are we blind?

Come and Steal Us again11th Malaysia Plan –What a load of baloney.

But my question is, are we blind? We can’t see that people are made so often to queue up with pails and bottles for water trucks. We can’t see congestion and massive jams every day. We can’t see dilapidated flats and unhygienic living conditions everywhere. We can’t see half of the working population can’t afford decent housing.   We can’t see our education is not performing. We can’t see that the real income of the people is not growing, what more with more taxes and depreciating ringgit.

But the irony is we have to wait for someone to write all these down and for our PM to read them out in the Parliament before we could pretend to know these are the important issues requiring attention. What a load of baloney.

1MDB Financial Scandal: Malaysia’s DPM Muhyiddin breaks rank with his Boss Najib


May 21, 2015

Phnom Penh

ambrin-buangCOMMENT: It is time for DPM Muhyiddin to make his stand on 1MDB and stop playing UMNO politics. Listen to the angry voices of Malaysians  who are united in wanting answers to the 1MDB scandal. They want to know why the inept and weak Prime Minister is playing games.

They need some explanation from the Auditor-General, Tan SriAbu Kassim Ambrin Buang, why he has not released his report since he was directed  three months ago by the Prime Minister to conduct a full “no stones unturned” investigation into the affairs of 1MDB. They also expect the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to commence its investigation and stop using Tunku Abdul Aziz to give excuses via the mainstream media for failing to do so .

Both these agencies are thoroughly dysfunctional. If the Auditor-General and the MACC Chief Commissioner are unwilling to do their jobs, they should do Malaysians a favour. Just resign and go play golf for the rest of their lives.

Yes, RM42 billion–not a mean sum– is not missing, as the Prime Minister says. But Malaysians want, and have to right, to be told what happened to the funds and why this sovereign fund is now technically insolvent; they expect to be informed what plans are in place to resolve its financial woes, apart from what has been done now through garage sales of its assets to cash rich GLCs like Tabung Haji in order to pay its creditors.

Here the Governor, Bank Negara Malaysia has failed to do her duty as financial advisor to the government and protector of financial integrity of the banking system. She must resign for allowing local and international banks to lend huge amounts of money to 1MDB.

More importantly, Malaysians expect to  be advised of what will lodin-wok-kamaruddinhappen to the 1MDB Chairman and Directors who have failed to do their fiduciary duty diligently, and its management  team led by a certain Mr. Arul Kanda Kandasamy for dereliction of professional responsibility.

The Sarawak Report, The Edge Magazine disclosures, and the revelations by former Prime Minister Tun Dr.Mahathir Mohamad, and Parliamentarians Tony Pua and Rafizi Ramli can no longer be ignored. These are not figments of their imagination.

The continued failure of 1MDB to meet its debt obligations will create ripple effects throughout the economy by undermining public and international investor confidence in Malaysia. The Deputy Prime Minister is correct in demanding an end to this hide and seek games that are being played by Prime Minister Najib Razak. But how far will Muhyiddin go. Will he demand the Prime Minister’s resignation? That is the question all Malaysians want answered.–Din Merican

1MDB Financial Scandal: DPM Muhyiddin breaks rank with his Boss Najib

by Nigel Aw@www.malaysiakini.com

The government may have repeatedly told the public to wait for the completion of the audit of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) before passing judgement, but a leaked video has revealed the country’s No 2 is not on the same page.

In a leaked video depicting a closed-door meeting between Muhyiddin and UMNO grassroots in Pahang last week, the Deputy Premier said the authorities must wait no longer.

“We have to take action, we cannot be: ‘Nevermind, give a bit more time’. No!” he said exasperatedly.

The event was believed to have taken place at UMNO’s training centre in Janda Baik last Saturday, just a day after 1MDB urged the public to wait for the outcome of the Auditor-General’s Department’s audit.

“We request that no one should prejudge the matter without thorough facts, ahead of the reviews being made public,” said the company in a statement.

This was echoed by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on Sunday, a day after Muhyiddin’s speech inDPM at UMNO Pahang Janda Baik, through his “frequently asked question” article posted on his blog.

“It is unfair for certain politicians to convict the government in the court of public opinion before the facts are presented by the authorities which are the auditor-general and bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee,” said Najib.

The seven-minute video was uploaded yesterday by former New Straits Times editor Firdaus Abdullah.

The video appeared to have diverted attention from Parliament today, where Najib presented the 11th Malaysia Plan, as journalists swarmed Muhyiddin about the leaked video, which he confirmed to be authentic.

“Those were views aired behind closed doors… It is my view and those of my political colleagues to better understand (the issue),” he said.

DPM moves differently behind closed doors

Muhyiddin, who is UMNO Deputy President, merely smiled when asked how Najib had reacted to the what he said in the video, replying: “It’s nothing, focus on my (present) statement”.

The video also gave a closer look at who Muhyiddin is when he speaks to UMNO leaders behind closed doors, as he spoke in a frank and Prime Minister-like manner.

Muhyiddin, who often comes across as dull and monotonous in public, displayed his ability to work the grassroots as he cracked jokes and emphasised how UUMNO needed to deal with its public image with regards to 1MDB.

In his speech, Muhyiddin joked that UMNO members were trying to act smarter than they actually were, but then continued in a firm tone declaring that his stance on matters such as 1MDB.

“On issues like this, I am convinced then if it is unresolved, it will be the straw on the camel’s back,” said Muhyiddin, who emphasised his point with uncharacteristic animated hand gestures.

Najib did not appear in the video clip, but other top UMNO leaders present clearly seen were Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Deputy Finance Minister Ahmad Maslan and Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob.

C4, not MACC: Najib Razak must answer on 1MDB and Submarine Deal


May 18, 2015

C4, not MACC: Najib Razak must answer on 1MDB and Submarine Deal

Confused NajibPrime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must be held responsible for his role in two scandals – 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and the Scorpene deal – in which billions of ringgit were plundered with no accountability, an anti-graft watchdog said today.

The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) said the similarities between both controversies were “deeply worrying”.”Najib must be held responsible for these scandals,” said C4 executive director Cynthia Gabriel in a statement today.

She said the RM42 billion debt raked up by 1MDB in just five years of its operations demonstrated how power play, patronage politics and corruption had taken a toll on the nation, adding that it was unsurprising that the state investment vehicle was not Najib’s first financial scandal.

“The Scorpene submarine deal was another multi-billion dollar purchase, reeking of corruption that scandalised the nation just prior to the last general election. The numerous inconsistent answers dished out at Parliament finally led human rights group Suaram to file a judicial complaint in the French tribunal,” she commented.

In the statement, Gabriel listed four parallels between the controversial deals, includingCynthia Najib’s involvement in both. She said when the Scorpene deal was inked in 2002, Najib was defence minister and responsible for the purchase of the submarines, while in the Finance Ministry-owned 1MDB,  Najib, Finance Minister is also Chairman of its Board of Advisors.

“He was well aware of the wheeling and dealing of the chief negotiators, and the elements of the deal agreed by both parties (in Scorpene).The buck stops with Najib on the 1MDB fiasco”,she said.

Another similarity, Gabriel said, was the fact that Najib “handpicked” his closest friends and associates to head the mega deals, with Abdul Razak Baginda for Scorpene and Low Taek Jho for 1MDB.

“Razak Baginda was not a personnel of the Defence Ministry, but was handpicked by Najib to lead the negotiations. In fact, in documents confidentially shown to Suaram by French lawyers then, it was highlighted that Razak Baginda was handpicked also because of his wife’s (Mazlinda Makhzan) close relationship with Najib’s wife (Rosmah Mansor).

“Isn’t Jho Low, the man at the centre of the 1MDB controversy, also Najib’s friend and associate? What really Jho Low’s role was in the PetroSaudi deal remains a huge mystery,” she said, referring to one of 1MDB’s deals that recently came under much scrutiny.

These friends and associates also seemed to run the government’s “treasure chest” like it was their own money to be thrown around and siphoned away, she said.

“Documents show that Razak Baginda in the Scorpene deal set up two companies specific to the French purchase. The first was Perimekar and the second – Terasasi – was formed to receive illicit funds never meant to be made public.Here his father and he are the controlling directors. While it was reported in Parliament that Perimekar had received close to RM550 million (€114.9 million), for coordination services, Terasasi received amounts of up to €42 million.”

This was similar to 1MDB’s dealings, Gabriel said, where reports showed that RM700 million of the RM1 billion investment money from 1MDB was eventually siphoned off into a Swiss Bank account called Goldstar Ltd, owned and controlled by Low.

lodin-wok-kamaruddinGabriel also noted another similarity, namely the involvement of Tan Sri Lodin Wak Kamaruddin in both scandals. Lodin, she said, was a director of Perimekar, the go-between company involved in the submarine purchase until 2010. He oversaw the transfer of money amounting to €114.9 million into Perimekar’s account.

Ironically, Gabriel added, Perimekar’s only client was the Malaysian government.

“Lodin incidentally is also on the board of directors and chairman of 1MDB. He is also the chief executive of the Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), a fund for military pensioners. The LTAT owned 20% of Perimekar, hence the use of public funds was involved in the purchase of the submarines,” she said.

“We draw parallels here with how Najib directs funds contributed by tax payers with so much ease in business investments, with no clear oversight mechanisms, and no care for accountability and transparency. The LTAT, Lembaga Tabung Haji and the Pensioners Fund (KWAP) have all been thrown into controversy.”

She said that Najib had to be held accountable for these scandals and called for his immediate resignation as Finance Minister.

“Too much money has been plundered with zero accountability at the expense of ordinary Malaysians. His empty chest beating and pledges to combat corruption and promote people-centred governance ring hollow. C4 thus joins the chorus of concerned voices and demands that he relinquish his finance minister portfolio with immediate effect, to save Malaysia from further catastrophe,” she said.

Calls for Malaysia’s sixth Prime Minister to resign, including from retired statesman Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, have risen since pilgrim fund Lembaga Tabung Haji confirmed buying land from 1MDB.However, Najib remains adamant that he will not step down, saying he will remain in the job with support from Umno and trust from the people.

Suaram filed a complaint with a Paris civil court in 2012 over the multi-million ringgit Scorpene scandal. The probe on Scorpene is still in progress at the Tribunal de Grande Instance.

The Edge on the 1MDB Financial Mess


May 17, 2015

The Edge Report on why 1MDB Directors must be held accountable

1mdb-kgpandan-tmi-030315.jpgThe Edge has published a four-page special pullout detailing six questionable transactions that it says must be explained by the 1MDB directors. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, May 17, 2015.The Edge has published a four-page special pullout detailing six questionable transactions that it says must be explained by the 1MDB directors. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, May 17, 2015.

lodin-wok-kamaruddinThe Edge Business Weekly says in its latest issue that past and present directors of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) must be held accountable for all the decisions that have created the financial mess it is in today.

It said although controversial businessman Jho Low had a hand in certain dealings, ultimately, decisions were made by the board of directors and management.

The Edge has published a four-page special pullout detailing six questionable transactions that it said must be explained by the 1MDB directors.It added that both the Public Accounts Committee and auditor-general should refer to the report in their investigations into 1MDB. – May 17, 2015.

– See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/edge-on-why-1mdb-directors-must-be-held-accountable#sthash.pDSawJZC.dpuf

NEPOTISM at work in Malaysia


May 15, 2015

Phnom Penh by The Mekong

NEPOTISM at work in Malaysia

http://www.sarawakreport.org/2015/05/najibs-son-is-still-a-significant-shareholder-of-ufun-linked-company-exclusive/

Nazifuddin-bin-Dato-Seri-Mohd-Najib-RazakMohd Nazifuddin Najib, the second son of Prime Minister Najib Razak has publicly denied any involvement with Ufun Group Bhd Ltd, a marketing firm that was recently exposed in Thailand for allegedly cheating over 120,000 people of RM4 billion.

Nazifuddin’s statement comes after Thai television station NOW 26 released a video report on Monday into alleged links between Ufun and Nazifuddin.

NOW 26’s programme highlighted the apparent media blackout in Malaysia and speculated it might be because the company has links to the Prime Minister Najib Razak’s son. Nazifuddin yesterday insisted that all this was completely untrue and that such reports are “cyber-bullying” by malicious entities.

A ponzi scheme encouraging the public to invest in online tokens

He added that he knew nothing of the three Malaysians against whom the Thai Police have issued arrest warrants, following their crackdown on the scheme over the past few days.

The fact that his name and supposed involvement had been widely used to advertise the Thai ponzi scheme over recent years did not mean he was involved, he further explained, because Ufun’s various pyramid-style subsidiaries had deceptively exploited his name.

Nazifuddin says that he had informed the police about this back in 2012.

What’s more, he also said that he had completely cut ties with a company that has also been linked to Ufun in Malaysia, Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd, because he had resigned from the post of Director and Chairperson of the company on 31 May 2012.

It was only last month, on 26th April 2015, that Ufun signed a memorandum of understanding with Lagenda Erajuta Sdn Bhd, which is a subsidiary of Sagajuta, for the Gateway Klang development project with a value of RM1.2 billion. Ufun has claimed to hold a 30% stake.

Still a shareholder of Sagajuta

It seems strange therefore that, in the context of all these denials, Nazifuddin neglected to mention that he remains a substantial shareholder of Sagajuta, of which he was previously the Chairman.

“I have no involvement with the group and have already warned the police, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Thai embassy of this incident when I first discovered it a couple of years back. There is no concrete evidence in the video that suggests my involvement with Ufun (Group Bhd Ltd) and their schemes. Someone is coordinating a libelous personal attack by viraling a Thai video of my involvement with the Ufun group in an attempt to smear my name and attack my reputation,” stated Nazifuddin [Malaysiakini].

Yet, Nazifuddin is both a direct investor in Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd and is also a shareholder of the company with the largest amount of shares, Generasi Sipta Sdn Bhd:

Nazifuddin - Direct shareholder and Indirect Shareholder via Generasi Cipta

Shareholder of Generasi Cipta Sdn Bhd

So, why did he gloss over his shareholding in the Ufun joint venture, given that this scandalous Thai company has co-invested into a project involving Sagajuta worth hundreds of millions of ringgit? Would it not have been better to have been a little more frank about the link, given it is so hard to sweep under the carpet?

Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd has been mentioned as being involved with Ufun in promotional material published online over the past two years, according to investor blogs.

The link was alluded to by promoters of Ufun as late as last year - was that just coincidence?

If all these claims were so false and misleading it seems a strange choice for Sagajuta to have chosen to partner with Ufun in such a politically sensitive, state backed development project as Gateway Klang. Was Nazifuddin unaware that his former co-directors and fellow shareholders had selected this pesky jumped-up bunch of impersonators to enter such a very major joint venture with?  Had they neglected to engage him in their decision?

Given the sort of untrue stuff below, he could have warned them that linking up with the likes of Ufun could only bring trouble and police involvement:

Bloggers have pointed to promotional material referring to Nazifuddin Najib  and his Sagajuga link which he says is misleading

Mega-loans

Company records show that the loans taken out by Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd are enormous.  The Register of Companies lists 38 loans by this developer, mostly still outstanding, which add up to a staggering  RM758,780,900. The majority of these are with the Sabah Development Bank and Malaysia Building Society. Ufun has presumably shouldered some of the cost of these investments.

Although, clearly a great deal must already have been built in Klang Gateway after such enormous injections of State Development lending.One wonders why the company could have thought it was a good idea to link up with Ufun?

Did Nazifuddin's key connection help Sagajuta get its contact?

Tabung Haji to sell land from 1MDB on PM’s advice


May 9, 2015

Phnom Penh by The Mekong

Najib and the PhoneThe question is who made the call to Azeez for Tabung Haji to buy the 1MDB land in the first place.We are only told that the Prime Minister made to call to instruct  the Fund to sell off the land that was purchased from 1MDB.  Second, if it was a  such good investment why sell it now? How in the world can we take this Najib Administration seriously, or trust the Prime Minister to do things properly. Don’t play hide and seek with the depositors of Tabung Haji and the Malaysian people.–Din Merican.

Tabung Haji to sell land from 1MDB on PM’s advice

by Radzi Razak@www,malaysiakini.com

Tabung Haji will sell the controversial piece of land brought from 1MDB following advice from the Prime Minister, said its chairperson Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim. Azeez said the board has agreed to sell it to respect the sentiments and sensitivities of the fund’s depositors. However Azeez, who is also Baling MP, denied Tabung Haji did anything wrong in purchasing the land.

“The Prime Minister called me this morning and advised us to sell the land. There are three offers already and we will settle it next week.” Najib is also Chairperson of 1MDB’s Advisory Board, and Finance Minister.

“We can get back 100 percent of our money and even profit from it,” added Azeez at a press conference today.Azeez THB

Azeez revealed that the board members until yesterday did not agree to sell the land as the deal had been done without any hanky-panky and is a normal investment for Tabung Haji.

Just two days ago when the controversy first surfaced, Tabung Haji said that the land would be used to develop a residential building. Tabung Haji bought 1.56 acres of the 70-acre land in Tun Razak Exchange owned by 1MDB for RM188.5 million. It worked out to about RM2,779 per square foot (psf).. 1MDB had a few years ago bought the entire 70 acres of the land from the government for a mere RM194.1 million, or about RM74.20 psf.

Not bailout’

Azeez said Tabung Haji was first approached to buy the land in April 2013, and this was agreed by the administration and investment panel first before it was brought to the board. He repeatedly insisted that it was not a bailout.

“This is not a bailout like some blogs claimed! The full board must agree first. If one person disagrees then we cannot make any decision whether to invest or to purchase,” Azeez said, mentioning that all the board members were joining him in today’s press conference.

Azeez, however, did not say which are the companies which had offered to buy the land. He said that the issue was political polemics which was trying to drag Tabung Haji along with it, and it is best for him and the fund to stay away from it.

UMNO-TBH Goons

“This also proves that it is not hard to sell the land.I wanted to say that after this please don’t accuse Tabung Haji of selling the land to the non-Muslims.We are reviewing the offers and will convene to make a decision next week. I have instructed our chief financial officers to announce the sale of the land in a press conference,” he said.