Exposing Najib Razak crime: Grand Larceny in Najib Razak's 1MDB scandal part 2

A "very weird proceedings" in Malaysia

Why were similar proceedings not instituted in Malaysia?

After all, Malaysia is the natural jurisdiction since the company in question, 1MDB, is incorporated and carries on business here. Najib, Riza and Jho Low are Malaysians. 

So the nexus to Malaysia is greater than anywhere else.

Is it not embarrassing for the attorney-general of Malaysia to be reminded by his counter-part in the United States, under whose leadership the complaint was brought, that stealing from public funds by Najib is a criminal offence under Malaysian law. 

Thus, in Paragraph 499, seven separate offences under our Penal Code are listed as being violated: three provisions under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act are also identified in that Paragraph.

Bank fraud is a crime under at least three provisions under the Penal Code, as we are reminded in Paragraph 500. And the entire world knows about the universal application of Anti-Money Laundering Legislation (like AMLA) across the globe; a consequence of 9/11. 

And yet no criminal proceedings have been commenced in Malaysia!

Former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin and former attorney-general Gani Patail will testify as to what happened to them a year ago when they tried to act against Najib. 

Unfortunately, the late Kevin Morrais’ role in the 1MDB scandal has never been publicly clarified, and remains a matter of rumour and speculation.

A climate of fear has enveloped all the senior office-holders of the major institutions of the nation. MACC, the inspector-general of police (IGP) and Bank Negara have gone silent. 

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has been disbanded, and the auditor-general’s report has been 'marked an official secret' .

Because 1MDB was the company which directly suffered losses worth billions of ringgit, they should have filed civil recovery actions against persons like Jho Low and Najib, who were supposed to look after their interests but in fact were plundering it. 

Since the wrong-doers are still very much in control of 1MDB, it is not surprising that the company has not complained, much less resorted to litigation against anyone.

Litigation by other parties have so far been unsuccessful. 

I should disclose that I was part of the legal team that acted for some of the opposition parties and personalities when they sued Najib and 1MDB last July upon discovery of the US$681 million being credited into his personal account at Ambank.

The civil suit was summarily struck out as being wholly without merit, although all the contentions therein, based principally on the Sarawak Report and Wall Street Journal, have been corroborated by the US complaint.

Najib Abdul Razak

A minor criticism can be levelled against the complaint: its failure to actually name Najib Abdul Razak. 

The obvious inference is that it was a political decision not to shame a sitting prime minister most friendly to USA and its president. 

But the legal draftsmen, no doubt irritated by such political constraint to their freedom to plead in the manner of their choosing, make it crystal clear that Najib is “Malaysian Official 1”.

Thus, Paragraph 28 states that Malaysia Official 1 “is a high-ranking official in the Malaysian government who also held a position of authority with 1MDB”. 

At all material times, Najib is, and was, the prime minister, finance minister and chairperson of the advisory committee of 1MDB. 

No other member of the government held such triple functions, a fact expressly recognised in Paragraph 39 of the complaint.

Just in case any reader of the complaint has any difficulty in recognising Najib as Malaysian Official 1, it would be removed by reading the very next Paragraph, that is Paragraph 29 (indeed, the juxta-positioning of the 2 paragraphs is itself instructive). 

Riza Aziz is described as “a relative of Malaysian Official 1”. 

Riza is the stepson of Najib, and is not related to any other personality directly, indirectly or remotely involved in the 1MDB scandal.

In such circumstances, it is absolutely pointless for Najib and his loyal, diehard supporters to claim that because he is not named in the complaint, it does not refer to him.

 Indeed, the complaint cannot properly be understood in its entirety, unless one understands Najib’s dominance over 1MDB, as was the political and business reality.

The first reference to wrongdoing on Najib’s part appears in Paragraphs 99 to 102. 

Paragraph 99 states that US$20 million was transferred between February and June 2011 into Najib’s now notorious personal account with AmBank, Kuala Lumpur, from monies stolen from 1MDB. Paragraph 102 states that this was the same AmBank account which received US$681 million in March 2013.

The second corrupt action involving Najib is referred to in Paragraphs 178 and 193, Paragraph 178 states that 1MDB bond proceeds were diverted from their intended purpose for the personal benefit of among others, Najib, which further evidences “a misappropriation of public funds”. 

In the case of Najib, Blackstone in that transaction transferred at least US$30 million to his Ambank account: see Paragraph 193.

The third reference to corrupt monies received by Najib can be found in Paragraph 229 which states that during a five-day period in March 2013, 

US$681 million was transferred from the Tanore account to Najib’s AmBank account, from which US$620 was returned to the Tanore account in August 2013.

What happened to the difference of US$61 million, is not mentioned in the complaint. 

Thus, it is clear that at least a total of US$731 million was received by Najib in his Ambank account.

Paragraph 238 is critical. 

It explains why creditors were prepared to purchase bonds issued by 1MDB, which is a company with a paid-up capital of just RM1 million, but able to issue US$3 billion worth of bonds in March 2013 (to give just one example of such a bond issue). 

That is because Najib, as finance minister, signed a letter of support on behalf of the government of Malaysia.

Regardless of the title of that document, effectively the government was guaranteeing repayment if 1MDB defaults. 

Najib was not only prepared to risk injury to Malaysia’s sovereign immunity by being sued in the Courts of England, but more importantly was also undertaking to pay tax-payers monies from the Consolidated Fund, if 1MDB defaults.

In so signing the letter of support, Najib was placed in a terrible conflict of interest position: his interest as a beneficiary of corrupt monies overriding his duty as a public servant elected to protect taxpayers’ money.

The complaint also focuses on the offering circular, leading to the issue of 1MDB Bonds. 

Paragraph 242 states that the offering circular was misleading because it failed to disclose that Najib “would receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the proceeds of the bond sale within days of its closing”.

Paragraphs 259 to 264 deal with a subject familiar to Malaysia: the title to this part of the complaint reads: 

“US$681 million was transferred from the Tanore Account to an Account Belonging to Malaysian Official 1”. Paragraph 259 simply states:

“Shortly after proceeds of the 2013 bond sale were diverted to the Tanore Account, US$681,000,000.00 was sent from the Tanore Account to a bank account belonging to Malaysian Official 1.”

No guesses needed that this official was Najib, (and no other person). 

According to Paragraphs 248 and 249, Eric Tan Kim Loong, a close associate of Jho Low, was the sole authorised signatory to the Tanore Account, but in March 2013 1MDB Officer 3 was given signing authority on the Tanore Account through a Power of Attorney.

Thus, although Paragraph 262 pleads that RM620 million was returned by Najib to the Tanore Account, it does not mean that Najib could not have had access to it, thereafter, since the Tanore Account was controlled by Jho Low. 

What is clear is that the monies were not a gift from the Saudi royalty, but proceeds from bonds issued by 1MDB, which means 1MDB must repay them. 

And if 1MDB cannot, Malaysian taxpayers will.

The allegations levelled against Malaysian Official 1 in these paragraphs of the complaint are most grave, and indicate a pattern of systematic corruption, while holding the most important office in the state. 

Again, there is absolutely no doubt that although these paragraphs do not expressly name Najib, it is impossible to think of any other individual fitting the role.