The Role of the Malaysian A-G in Political Scandals


June 20, 2017

 

Image result for Apandi AliThe Malaysian Attorney-General is the Public Prosecutor. He must uphold the Rule of Law. (The Malaysian Constitution–Article 145). His job is to protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect.
The Malaysian Constitution–Article 145

 

The Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Government. His role and responsibilities are provided for in Article 145 of the Federal Constitution. Article 145 of the Federal Constitution provides:

(1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

(3A) Federal law may confer on the Attorney General power to determine the courts in which or the venue at which any proceedings which he has power under Clause (3) to institute shall be instituted or to which such proceedings shall be transferred.

(4) In the performance of his duties the Attorney General shall have the right of audience in , and shall take precedence over any other person appearing before, any court or tribunal in the Federation.

(5) Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine.

(6) The person holding the office of Attorney General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.

The Role of the Malaysian A-G in Political Scandals

The A-G’s quick dismissal of the DoJ’s second suit and his vigorous defence of the Prime Minister against any criminal wrongdoing has raised eyebrows.

by  Lim Wei Jiet

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Image result for malaysian official 1

 

A little over 24 hours ago, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a second suit to recover more assets allegedly acquired using 1MDB funds. The 251-page complaint sheds more light on the scandal and seeks to seize assets such as yachts, diamonds, rights to Red Granite Pictures films and paintings by notable artists.

In a matter of hours, the Malaysian Attorney-General (A-G) saw fit to release a press statement. Two observations were made from this press statement:

Number One – the A-G was unmistakably dismissive of the DoJ’s second suit: “This second action comes on the anniversary of the first, and appears to be a repeat of it”.

Number Two – the A-G mounted a vigorous defence of the prime minister: “The attorney-general expressed his strong concerns at the insinuations and allegations that have been made against the Prime Minister of alleged criminal wrongdoing in relation to the civil action”.

With respect, these postures adopted by the A-G are both misconceived and not in line with the role of an attorney-general in law. Make no mistake – this second civil suit is not a repeat of the first filed on July 20, 2016.

First, the DoJ has now quantified the alleged misappropriated funds at US$4.5 billion from the initial US$3 billion. Second, it reveals several new “phases” in which funds were allegedly siphoned from 1MDB. Third and most obvious, it has identified more assets in which these misappropriated funds were spent on.

It is therefore unfathomable how the A-G can reach a conclusion that the second civil suit is a repeat of the first, what more in a matter of hours after its release.

Eyebrows were also raised as to how quickly the AG sought to shield the Prime Minister from allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

These statements appear to be incongruent with established international conventions on the role of prosecutors.

Article 13(b) of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors 1990 states that prosecutors shall “(b) protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect”.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the International Association of Prosecutor’s Standards of Professional Responsibility 1999 states that “Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. In particular they shall…act with objectivity; have regard to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect…always search for the truth and assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community, the victim and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness.”

Moving forward, it is humbly recommended that these guidelines be followed by the A-G:

• To appoint a special prosecutor of unimpeachable integrity to investigate and take appropriate action in relation to the 1MDB matter, as the attorney-generals in the US have done in Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal and Robert Mueller towards Russian interference in the US elections.

• Whenever a foreign jurisdiction takes action on matters relating to the 1MDB matter, take appropriate time to read and liaise with the authorities to comprehensively assess all relevant angles before dismissing the same.

• Whenever any party alleges or accuses a person investigated in the 1MDB matter, take appropriate time to reach out to such parties for more information before dismissing the same.

• Never attack or defend any person currently being investigated in the 1MDB matter to prevent an impression of bias.

If one needs a role model, one can look no further than our US brethren in Sally Yates, the acting US attorney-general who defied US President Donald Trump in defence of the Rule of Law and the dignity of the DoJ.

I end by quoting a paragraph of her poignant speech to the Harvard Law School’s graduating class of 2017:

“There is plenty worth fighting for. For me, it’s criminal justice reform — so that we can have a fair and proportional criminal justice system that applies equally to all regardless of race, wealth or status. It’s also respect for the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line to protect us. It’s holding corporate executives who break the law accountable so that cheating and stealing doesn’t become just a way of doing business…It’s the rule of law, and the principle that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be free to do their work without political interference or intimidation.”

Lim Wei Jiet is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. He is also the deputy co-chairperson of the Malaysian Bar Constitutional Law Committee.

The Ethically-Blighted Prime Minister of Malaysia–Najib Razak


June 19, 2017

The Ethically-Blighted Prime Minister of Malaysia–Najib Razak

by Dr.M. Bakri Musa, Morgan-Hill, California

Image result for Najib Razak and Rosmah Mansor

As for MO1, his spouse and stepson, they are beyond shame. With the millions if not billions they have already expropriated, they can handle the setback. Malaysians however, would be saddled for generations with 1MDB’s humongous debt. Quite a legacy for the son of the late Tun Razak! As for the Tun, what a legacy to have bequeathed Malaysia with his ethically-blighted son.–M.Bakri Musa

The dismissive attitude of Malaysian officials to the latest US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) civil forfeiture lawsuit targeting expensive assets allegedly acquired with funds illicitly siphoned from 1MDB is misplaced. Their stance is an embarrassing display of gross ignorance.

Yes, civil lawsuits in America are as common as mushrooms after a rainfall. This DOJ action however, is the largest (in dollar value) such forfeitures to date. This second set of lawsuits targeted assets allegedly given to Hollywood celebrities, as well as to the spouse of “Malaysian Official 1” (MO1). The two categories are separate though the latter believe that she is in the same class as the former.

Najib apologists and enablers never fail to point out with unconcealed smugness that the defendants to the lawsuits are not individuals, specifically Najib or his associates and relatives, rather those assets.

That is right, but such sophistry reveals a fundamental ignorance of the American judicial system. Those targeted assets do not exist in vacuo; someone or somebody owns them. They in effect are the defendants.

By targeting those assets and not their owners, DOJ is spared the task of identifying their rightful owners. That can be an arduous and expensive task, what with multiple shell companies involved in dizzying number of foreign jurisdictions. Instead, all DOJ has to do is wait for the owners to come out of the woodwork to identify themselves and lay claim to those assets by challenging the lawsuit. They have to, otherwise they would lose those assets, or at least their share.

One of those owners is Jho Low. He claimed to have bought those assets with his family’s wealth. That at least was believable as he came from a wealthy clan in Penang. Sure enough, his family’s assorted trusts too have contested the lawsuit from faraway New Zealand!

Image result for Reza Aziz and J Lo

Then there is one Reza Aziz, identified as the “stepson of MO1.” Where did this son of a nondescript Malaysian army officer get his wealth? From his mother, the daughter of my parent’s contemporary as a village school teacher in Kuala Pilah? Visit her dilapidated ancestral home back in my kampong, and her current flamboyant lifestyle today would make you puke. As for Reza’s stepfather Najib Razak, that man had spent his entire adult life in government, with its measly pay.

Reza Aziz concocted the idea that the money (some hundred million!) was a “gift” from a benevolent Saudi Sheik. Even the wealthiest corpulent Sheik would not be so extravagant with his favorite toy-boy, yet this Reza Aziz character wants those seasoned DOJ prosecutors to believe his story! Even his American accountants did not believe him.

One other owner has also come forward. Hollywood celebrity Leonardo DiCaprio has not only surrendered the gifts he had received “from the parties named in the civil complaint” but went further and cooperated with DOJ investigators. That cannot be good news for either Jho Low or Reza Aziz.

Any bets whether any of the other “owners,” specifically the alleged recipient of that pink diamond, MO1’s spouse, would return their gifts? It is worth pondering whose actions better reflect the forgiving spirit of Ramadan, hers or DiCaprio’s?

Najib supporters trivialize the DOJ’s lawsuit, citing its lack of “action” after its first filing last year as proof of its political intent. To them, these series of forfeiture lawsuits are yet another albeit more sophisticated American attempt at regime change.  Such commentaries reveal a pathetic lack of the basic understanding of the US justice system.

This asset forfeiture is a civil lawsuit. Unlike criminal ones where the axiom “justice delayed, justice denied” is adhered to, civil suits can and do drag on for years. They go to trial only when all parties are ready, and all extraneous issues as with ownership claims settled. The fact that these forfeiture lawsuits drag on should not be misinterpreted in any way.

There is also the possibility that criminal charges would be filed against specific individuals during the discovery or the trial.

There is only one certainty. Once a lawsuit is filed, those assets are effectively tied up. They cannot be sold, mortgaged, or altered in any way without the court’s consent. DOJ has in effect total control of those assets, meaning, their de facto owner.

These forfeiture lawsuits will not be settled out of court. Those prosecutors have a point to prove, and with unlimited resources to pursue it. That reality has prompted owners like DiCaprio to cooperate with DOJ.

This will not be like a Malaysian trial where prosecutors could be illicitly paid off or where defense lawyers openly brag about having judges in their (lawyer’s) back pockets. The defendants have hired some of the best legal minds including those who had once worked in DOJ and had successfully prosecuted many high profile kleptocrats. It will be far from a walk in the park for the DOJ lawyers.

DOJ does have something in its favor. In a civil suit, unlike a criminal trial, the burden of proof is lower, only the “preponderance of evidence” and not “beyond reasonable doubt.” The burden of proof also shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant. Meaning, the owners have to prove that the funds they used to purchase those assets were untainted. It would be very difficult to convince an American jury that a Middle Eastern sheik would willingly part away with hundreds of millions of dollars to a Malay boy no matter how pretty he looks, for nothing in return.

Regardless of the outcome, this trial would expose to the world all the sordid ugly details of the 1MDB shenanigans. Once those are out, not many would be proud to call themselves Malaysians. They would be downright ashamed for having elected a leader with such unbounded avarice, and then letting him get away with it for so long.

Image result for Najib Razak and Tun Razak

As for MO1, his spouse and stepson, they are beyond shame. With the millions if not billions they have already expropriated, they can handle the setback. Malaysians however, would be saddled for generations with 1MDB’s humongous debt. Quite a legacy for the son of the late Tun Razak! As for the Tun, what a legacy to have bequeathed Malaysia with his ethically-blighted son.

US Targets USD540 million in assets bought with 1MDB Funds


June 16, 2017

1Malaysia Development Bhd

US Targets USD540 million in assets bought with 1MDB Funds

Latest move to recover money allegedly stolen from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund

by David J Lynch in Washington

https://www.ft.com/content/c7669654-51e8-11e7-bfb8-997009366969?mhq5j=e2

The US Department of Justice on Thursday moved to seize an additional $540m in assets purchased with funds stolen from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, including a luxury yacht, a Picasso painting, jewellery and rights to the movie Dumb and Dumber.

Image result for 1mdb scandal

The Wolves of 1MDB

The suit, which was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, is the latest move in an ambitious US effort to recover money allegedly siphoned from the fund in a sophisticated operation that ran from 2009 until 2015.

The US now estimates that a total of $4.5bn was pilfered by Malaysian public officials and their associates including Jho Low, a well-connected Malaysian businessman who held no formal role in the project.

Including the new lawsuit and earlier civil forfeiture actions, the US government has moved to recover $1.7bn of that amount, according to Kendall Day, acting deputy assistant attorney-general. This represents the largest such US seizure action under a DoJ initiative aimed at recovering money stolen by corrupt foreign officials.

Mr Day said the latest action was aimed at recovering “proceeds of a massive fraud”.

The scheme involved $1.2bn that 1MDB borrowed from Deutsche Bank in 2014, ostensibly to repay options connected with an earlier bond offering, prosecutors say. Of that borrowing, $850m was stolen to fund the lavish lifestyles of individuals including Mr Low and an official identified only as “Malaysian official 1”, a designation that in previous court filings has matched the biography of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak.

The Prime Minister has denied any wrongdoing, as has Mr Low.

In a statement on Thursday the Malaysian government said it would co-operate with any lawful investigation of the country’s companies or citizens but expressed concern “that again the DoJ has failed to seek such co-operation from the Malaysian government or 1MDB”.

The proceeds from two Deutsche Bank loans also were used to operate a Ponzi scheme designed to show that an earlier 1MDB investment in a joint venture with PetroSaudi International, a private Saudi Arabia-based oil services company, had been profitable.

In reality, none of the fund’s investments, which were to have promoted economic growth and foreign direct investment in Malaysia, paid off, according to Mr Day.

The fund obtained the loans “through material misrepresentations and omissions to Deutsche Bank”, according to the lawsuit. At one point, when bank officials requested documentation verifying key financial details, a 1MDB official replied that the fund had suffered a “server breakdown and all files were lost”, according to court filings.

The fund eventually defaulted on the larger of the two loans.Several 1MDB officials, along with their relatives and associates, used a global network of shell companies and bank accounts in the US, Singapore, Switzerland, and Luxembourg to pull off the heist, prosecutors say.

Mr Day said the investigation is continuing. The Financial Times reported last year that prosecutors are investigating Goldman Sachs’ handling of the proceeds of $6.5bn in bond offerings it conducted for the fund to determine whether it complied with reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Among the assets targeted in the civil lawsuit filed on Wednesday was a $261m yacht called “The Equanimity”, which prosecutors said was constructed in 2014 and could hold 25 guests and a crew of 33. The 300 feet long vessel boasted a helicopter pad, a gymnasium, cinema, and plunge pool, prosecutors said.

The US also moved to seize 2.5m shares of Palantir stock, a Madison Avenue condominium, a framed colour poster for the 1927 silent movie Metropolis, and rights to the movie Daddy’s Home, which starred Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg.

The lawsuit also targeted several diamonds, including a nearly 12-carat heart-shaped item, and the painting “Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau” by Picasso.

The Picasso was given in January 2014 as a birthday gift to the actor Leo DiCaprio, who starred in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. The film was produced by Red Granite, which was backed financially by individuals allegedly involved in the scandal, including Riza Aziz, a relative of Mr Najib, and Mr Low.

Through a spokesman, Mr DiCaprio said on Thursday that before the government filed its latest action, he had “initiated return of these items, which were received and accepted by him for the purpose of being included in an annual charity auction to benefit his eponymous foundation”.

The actor also has returned an Oscar originally won by Marlon Brando, which he received as another gift from Red Granite.

The company, which also produced Dumb and Dumber and Daddy’s Home, said it “is actively engaged in discussions with the Justice Department aimed at resolving” the civil litigation.

Last year, the US filed civil forfeiture actions seeking more than $1bn in assets purchased with money allegedly stolen from the 1MDB fund.

The new suit says assets belonging to several individuals or businesses such as Jho Low; Low Taek Szen; JW Hospitality (VHG Intl) Ltd; FFP (Cayman) Ltd; Mubadala Development Company PJSC; Viceroy Hotel Group; and Jynwel Capital Ltd, may be affected by the action.

Additional reporting by Kara Scannell in New York

Follow David J Lynch on Twitter: @davidjlynch

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL LAWSUITS:PRIME MINISTER’S PRESS SECRETARY STATEMENT

16 June 2017

1. We note the United States Department of Justice’s (DoJ) latest civil lawsuits brought against various assets. The Malaysian government will fully cooperate with any lawful investigation of Malaysian companies or citizens in accordance with international protocols. So we are concerned that again the DoJ has failed to seek such cooperation from the Malaysian government or 1MDB, the Malaysian company concerned.

2. We are also concerned by the unnecessary and gratuitous naming of certain matters and individuals that are only relevant to domestic political manipulation and interference. This suggests a motivation that goes beyond the objective of seizing assets.

3. There have been numerous and extensive investigations by Malaysian authorities into 1MDB, including by independent and bi-partisan bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee, and no crime was found. 1MDB is still the subject of an investigation by the Royal Malaysia Police. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, Malaysia will not hesitate to take action.

4.Until then, unproven allegations should not be taken as facts. And we take note of DoJ’s own press release, which states that “A civil forfeiture complaint is merely an allegation that money or property was involved in or represents the proceeds of a crime. These allegations are not proven until a court awards judgment in favor of the U.S.”.

5. The judicial process is not served by headline seeking. Malaysia stands firm in its support of transparency and good governance. That includes ensuring that accusations have a basis in fact, rather than smears briefed by political opponents. We are confident that justice will take its course and Malaysia will continue to cooperate with all willing international agencies. As the Prime Minister has always maintained, if any wrongdoing is proven, the law will be enforced without exception.

Image result for datuk seri tengku sariffuddin

DATUK SERI TENGKU SARIFFUDDIN, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER 

Malaysia Practises KorekEconomics


June 12, 2017

Malaysia Practises KorekEconomics (Dig-Economics)

by Rais Hussin Mohamed Ariff

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for najib razak

Finance Minister Najib Razak–The Proponent of KorekEconomics

COMMENT | The history of taxation is synonymous with the rise of the state. When kings and warlords could not go on plundering and pillaging the people, they switched to taxation to prevent the farmers and settlers from avoiding the punitive measures.

By soft pedalling on the extraction, the state was born. Mancur Olson, an economist, referred to the state as the evolution from the “stationary bandit”. Paul Collier, at Oxford University, spoke of the logic of using the state to collect rents systematically, rather than to steal sporadically and in a spurious manner too.

In Malaysia, under the current administration, the two concepts that separate stealing from collecting taxes have been collapsed into one. Both are two sides of the same coin.

By introducing the tourism tax, for example, it seems to be aimed at foreign tourists. Yet, does anyone remember “Cuti-Cuti Malaysia?” This is an ongoing campaign that encourages Malaysians of all ages to travel within the country.

Yet, the moment you do, any five-, four- or three-star hotels you stay in means you would incur an additional cost that will go to the current administration. This ranges from RM 20 per night in a five-star hotel to RM 5 per night in a three-star hotel.

Thus, it doesn’t matter if you are a high-end traveller or a low-end traveller. The administration of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is there to extract a portion of your hard earned income that you have set aside for a family holiday.

Digging deep for ‘korek economics’

Image result for najib razak

In other words, in addition to the goods and services tax (GST), your income tax and potentially the service tax too, the government wants to put its hands into your pockets. And they will dig deep to get what they want, in what can only be known as “korek economics”.

“Korek economics” is not based on collection. It is driven by the degree to which the Malaysian economy has become ruined, or “koyak” in Malay, the lingua franca of Malaysia.

In 1MDB, Malaysians are now saddled with, allegedly, a debt in excess of RM44 billion. When the debt of other government-owned companies are taken into account, the debt is easily more than 80 percent of the GDP.

Not forgetting the on-budget and off-budget debts. Off budget debts are debts created through bond issuance by an entity wholly owned by the government, with guarantees by the government.

Debts like the astronomical ECRL project, which is priced at an inflated price of RM55 billion and funded through debts from China. With an estimated three percent interest rate, seven years deferred payment and 240 months of repayment instalment, it will cost the government or the taxpayers a whopping sum of RM99.6 billion!

If we use the East Coast passenger load to find the breakeven ticket price one way from KL to Kota Bahru, it will cost a whopping RM3,586 one way, the same price for a return economy class air ticket to Siberia, Russia. Get the point?

Not happy with the revenue drawn from GST, the Malaysian government has offered a mere 15 percent discount to more than half a million graduates who remain unable to pay back their PTPTN loan. This harms the ability of the graduates to live an ordinary life. Given the youth unemployment is three times the national average, they seem to resign to the fact that they are in hopeless zone.

Thus, the process to “korek” Malaysia has not merely happened in the heart of Kuala Lumpur, where a hole is dug deep, without any structures on it, but it is proliferating across the whole country. Welcome to Curi-curi Malaysia.


RAIS HUSSIN MOHAMED ARIFF is a supreme council member of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu). He also chairs the Bersatu Policy and Strategy Bureau.

 

Sarawak Report: 1MDB Settlement CONFIRMS DOJ’s Case


April 26, 2017

1MDB Settlement CONFIRMS DOJ’s Case

Image result for Sarawak Report

The Relentless  and Fearless Crusader–Sarawak Report Founder Clare Rewcastle Brown

The settlement between 1MDB and the Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) has derailed the US Department of Justice (DOJ) civil suit to seize more than US$1 billion in assets allegedly purchased using funds siphoned from 1MDB, said an Umno leader.“This arbitration settlement has weakened the US DOJ civil suit and claims that 1MDB’s funds were stolen,” said UMNO Supreme Council Member Mohd Puad Zakarshi in a statement today.

Mohd Puad is also the Director-General of the Information Ministry’s Special Affairs Division (Jasa).

The settlement announced yesterday will see 1MDB pay IPIC US$1.2 billion, as repayment after IPIC covered interest payments on 1MDB bonds in June 2015. The bonds, valued at US$3.5 billion, were issued in 2012 to finance 1MDB’s energy unit – 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited and 1MDB Energy Limited. Both bonds are due by 2022.

MDB was supposed to pay IPIC US$3.5 billion for guaranteeing the bonds but IPIC said it never received payment. 1MDB said it had paid Aabar BVI, a British Virgin Island registered entity with an almost identical name as IPIC’s subsidiary. IPIC said it is not linked to Aabar BVI

Won’t touch taxpayer’s funds

This portion of the dispute will be further negotiated in “good faith” between the parties, IPIC said in its filing to the London Stock Exchange yesterday. “The parties have also agreed to enter into good faith discussions in relation to payments made by 1MDB Group to certain entities,” it said.

Meanwhile, Puad said the settlement shows that 1MDB will be able to pay its debts without touching taxpayers’ funds.This is through monetising the “investment units” redemeed from the Cayman Islands and held in a Singapore bank via 1MDB’s subsidiary Brazen Sky Limited, which is reported to be worth US$940 billion.

“These obligations will be met by 1MDB, primarily via monetisation of 1MDB-owned investment fund units. 1MDB is pleased to confirm that a first tranche monetisation of approximately US$50 million has been received, in cash,” 1MDB said yesterday.

The Prime Minister’s Office said 1MDB will cash out all of its “investment fund units”. Fuad said this shows that the “investment units” have value, and are not worthless as earlier claimed by the opposition.

Sarawak Report comments:

Image result for Mohd Puad Zarkashi

 Mohd Puad Zakarshi

Whatever qualifications were achieved by Mohd Puad Zakarshi, they plainly did not demand logic. Because, the settlement by 1MDB doesn’t undermine the DOJ case, to the contrary it confirms it. Period.

If 1MDB had really paid $3.5 billion in ‘guarantee deposits’ to IPIC, as Najib continues to laughably claim, then Malaysia would never have lost the arbitration case and been forced to pay back the $1.2 billion that IPIC later bailed them out with.

Instead, the court would have pointed out that the bail out was just a third of the up-front deposit and IPIC would actually still have over $2 billion of 1MDB’s money left.

This is not what has happened.  The settlement involves an agreement by 1MDB to pay back the bail out money and to take over the responsibility for the remainder of its debts.

It is therefore a concrete admission by Malaysia that it could not prove its claims that it had deposited a single cent let alone billions with IPIC.And that means that the money trails supplied by the DOJ investigations, showing instead that all the money was siphoned off into a bogus BVI account to pay for Jho Low, Rosmah and Khadem Al Qubaisi’s fun and frolics, has been confirmed by the settlement and not weakened.

Image result for Najib Razak, Zahih Hamidi and Keruak

Najib Razak and Bull Buddies

It is plain as daylight, yet this Minister of Disinformation is attempting to say the opposite. How stupid does he think people are in Malaysia? He is also asking people to believe that the payment is going to come from the ‘monetisation’ of non-existant ‘units’ that 1MDB also doesnt have, because all the PetroSaudi money was funnelled into another off-shore company (Good Star Limited) and stolen as well.

Puad says we should believe his story because the PM’s office said it (just like they said IPIC received money which it didn’t). So, who is going to believe this illogical and mendacious fellow when he goes on to say that Najib won’t be touching taxpayer’s funds to repay the debt? Is there a single voter who believes that?