Tag: Department of Justice

Posted on

Melayan Bontot Lembu

imdb

Banyak betul ajaran sesat yang disebarkan melalui WhatsApp sejak kebelakangan ini.  Kalau ikut logik penyokong parti pembangkang, itu tanda-tanda pilihanraya semakin hampir.  Kalau difikirkan, pilihanraya semakin hampir setiap hari sejak berakhirnya pilihanraya umum yang lepas.  Disebabkan ketandusan isu, maka isu-isu lama digemburkan kembali.  Inilah yang disebarkan:

1. Kalau Najib tak salah, kenapa AG Ghani Patail yang sedang siasat 1MDB dan SRC dipecat dari jawatannya atas alasan dia sakit (mungkin sudah dekat nak mati). Tapi sampai hari ini Ghani masih hidup, cergas dan akhir sekali berita dari Ghani mengatakan dia bekerja sebagai peguam pula. Tak sakit tenat pun, belum mati pun.

Gani Patail telahpun mencapai umur persaraan dan sedang berkhidmat dalam tempoh kontrak semasa perkhidmatan beliau sebagai Peguam Negara tidak lagi dikehendaki oleh Yang DiPertuan Agong.  Artikel dari Majlis Peguam Malaysia ini juga mengesahkan Gani menghidap sakit buah pinggang yang memerlukan rawatan dialisis tiga kali seminggu.

Selain itu, mantan Presiden Majlis Peguam Negara juga mengesahkan dalam petisyennya bahawa beliau pernah lihat Gani Patail mengendalikan mesyuaratnya di hospital ketika sedang menjalankan rawatan dialisis.

Rawatan dialisis biasanya akan mengambil masa EMPAT JAM , dan pesakit memerlukan di antara DUA hingga DUA BELAS JAM untuk tubuhnya kembali segar untuk melakukan lain-lain perkara.

Di dalam situasi yang kritikal yang memerlukan tumpuan penuh seorang Peguam Negara, sudah tentu Gani Patail tidak dapat memenuhi kehendak tugasnya.

2. Kalau Najib tak salah, kenapa pula Hamid Bador Boss No. 2 dalam SB atau Special Branch yang juga terlibat siasatan 1MDB, SRC dsbnya telah ditransfer dari jawatannya dan diarah melaporkan diri ke JPM pula. Hamid terus bersara dari pada perkhidmatan Polis.

Pertamanya, Hamid Bador tidak terlibat langsung dalam siasatan terhadap 1MDB dan lain-lain syarikat yang berhubung kait dengan syarikat tersebut.

Keduanya, seorang pegawai polis adalah tertakluk kepada Akta Polis, 1967 yang mana Seksyen 4(1) Akta tersebut berkehendakkan semua pegawai dan anggota PDRM menjalankan tugas di bawah kawalan seorang Ketua Polis Negara yang bertanggung jawab kepada seorang Menteri.  Takrif Menteri di sini mengikut Perkara 39 Perlembagaan Persekutuan ialah seorang yang dilantik dan diturunkan kuasa eksekutif oleh Yang DiPertuan Agong mewakili Seri Paduka Baginda.  Ini bermakna, kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara mengikut takrif adalah juga kesetiaan kepada kerajaan Yang DiPertuan Agong yang kini diketuai oleh Perdana Menteri Najib Razak.

Ketiga, Hamid Bador dikatakan adalah seorang yang tidak sebulu dengan mantan ketuanya, Dato Akhil Bulat.  Kemudian, Hamid juga dikatakan tidak berpuas hati kerana Datuk Fuzi (kemudiannya Tan Sri), dilantik menggantikan Dato Akhil Bulat sedangkan beliau (Hamid) lebih tinggi kekananannya.  Dalam konteks ini, Fuzi adalah lebih bernilai berbanding dengan Hamid kerana Fuzi pernah menjadi Pesuruhjaya Polis di Sabah.  Hamid langsung tidak pernah menerajui mana-mana kontinjen polis di peringkat mana-mana negeri.  Fuzi juga mempunyai jaringan yang baik dengan agensi-agensi perisikan luar negara berbanding Hamid.

3. Kalau Najib tak salah kenapa pula pegawai siasatan SPRM juga ditransfer daripada jawatan mereka.

Para pegawai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia adalah pegawai perkhidmatan awam seperti yang ditakrif oleh Seksyen 6(3) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia, 2009.  Disebabkan takrif tersebut, mereka juga tertakluk di bawah Akta Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, 1993, yang melalui Seksyen 4(1) menyebut bahawa setiap pegawai perkhidmatan awam dikehendaki memberikan taat setia tidak berbelah bahagi kepada Yang DiPertuan Agong, negara dan Kerajaan.

Seksyen 4(2)(f) dan (g) Akta tersebut juga menyebut pegawai perkhidmatan awam tidak boleh tidak jujur, tidak amanah, dan tidak bertanggungjawab.

Apa yang Bahri Md Zin telah lakukan ialah membocorkan hasil siasatan kes berhubung 1MDB kepada isteri kedua beliau, Noor Haslina Abdullah.

img_9526

Adakah perbuatan ini mencerminkan seorang pegawai yang takut kepada Tuhan?  Beliau tidak amanah, tidak jujur, dan tidak bertanggungjawab.

Setahu saya orang sebegini mengikut mafhum sebuah Hadith adalah seorang munafik.  Patutkah beliau terus disimpan?

4. Kalau Najib tak salah, kenapa pula seorang Tan Sri, ia itu bekas penasihat SPRM serta seorang pegawai penyiasat AG Chambers telah ditangkap oleh Polis berkaitan 1MDB juga dan dimasukkan ke dalam lokap.

Bekas Penasihat SPRM, Tan Sri Rashpal Singh telah ditahan kerana disyaki telah memberi maklumat berdarjah mengenai siasatan terhadap 1MDB kepada Clare Rewcastle Brown, orang di belakang tabir Sarawak Report, di Hyde Park, London.

Maklumat siasatan adalah tertakluk kepada Akta Rahsia Rasmi, 1972.

Pegawai Pejabat Peguam Negara yang ditahan itu pula ialah Jessica Gurmeet Kaur, seorang warganegara Singapura yang dikatakan mempunyai hubungan dengan Gani Patail.  Sepupu kepada suami Jessica pula ialah isteri kepada Ahli Parlimen DAP, Gobind Singh Deo.

affair

5. Kalau Najib tidak bersalah, kenapa pula Menteri Rahman Dahlan confirmkan bahawa makhluk MOI yang disebut oleh FBI / DOJ dalam siasatan kleptokrasi mereka berkenaan 1MDB itu sebenarnya adalah Najib? Ataupun mungkin Rahman Dahlan begitu bodoh macam bontot lembu?

Kalau dah dokumen DoJ mengatakan bahawa MO1 itu ada pertalian persaudaraan dengan Riza Aziz, salah seorang yang dinamakan di dalam dokumen tersebut, sudah tentu MO1 itu merujuk kepada Najib Razak.

Walau bagaimanapun, seperti yang juga disebutkan oleh dokumen yang sama, MO1 bukanlah individu yang menjadi sasaran siasatan mereka.  Malangnya, bontot-bontot lembu hingga kini berkata bahawa MO1 telah melakukan jenayah.

mubadala

Malah, pihak Pejabat Peguam Negara Switzerland juga mengesahkan bahawa Najib Razak bukan salah seorang yang menjadi sasaran siasatan mereka.

6. Kalau Najib tidak bersalah, kenapa pula anak tiri dia Riza Aziz sudah setuju bayar balik RM240 Juta (US$60 Juta) kepada DOJ di Amerika Syarikat sebagai ‘settlement’ untuk menyelesaikan saman sivil FBI / DOJ yang telah mula merampas harta Red Granite Pictures (syarikat kepunyaan riza Aziz) yang FBI / DOJ menuduh telah dibeli dengan menggunakan dana wang yang telah dicuri dari 1MDB, di mana Najib adalah sole shareholder and signatory.

Beginilah. Izinkan saya menjawab dengan bertanyakan beberapa soalan terlebih dahulu:

a) Sekiranya Riza Aziz bersalah, kenapa DOJ tidak mengheret beliau ke kandang orang yang dituduh di dalam sebuah mahkamah perundangan?

b) Sekiranya ianya merupakan kes jenayah, bukankah wang dan harta yang dirampas merupakan bahan kes sehingga ianya diperintah untuk dilupuskan setelah selesai perbicaraan?

c) Jumlah harta yang dirampas tetapi tidak dibawa ke mahkamah berjumlah US$540 juta (RM2.4 billion).  Kalau ada kes jenayah dibuktikan, kenapa perlu benarkan Riza Aziz membuat ‘settlement’ hanya berjumlah US$60 juta (RM240 juta)?

Jawapannya ialah: Civil Forfeiture Act yang digunapakai oleh DOJ adalah ibarat Akta ISA tetapi untuk harta.  Ramai di kalangan warga Amerika Syarikat mengaggap Akta tersebut bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Amerika Syarikat kerana tidak memerlukan prinsip res judicata (penghakiman yang telah dibuat).  Salah seorang yang menentang Akta tersebut ialah Justice Clarence Thomas, seorang Hakim Bersekutu di Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat yang termasyhur.

DOJ juga kini pening kepala kerana aduan yang dibuat terhadap dakwaan penyelewengan wang 1MDB bukannya dibuat oleh 1MDB sendiri.  Oleh kerana 1MDB tidak kehilangan walau satu sen pun, DOJ tidak tahu ke mana harta yang dirampas itu perlu dipulangkan atau kepada siapa.  Sebab itulah kes tersebut tidak ke mana-mana walaupun telah berlanjutan selama tiga tahun.  Mereka juga tidak dapat membuktikan wang tersebut berasal dari 1MDB kerana 1MDB tidak kehilangan wang.

Apa pun yang mungkin ditandatangani oleh Najib Razak sebagai sole shareholder (sebagai Menteri Kewangan) tidak digunakan untuk membiayai syarikat milik Riza Aziz mahupun Jho Low.

Apakah Riza Aziz anak tiri Najib juga bodoh tahap bontot lembu macam Menteri Rahman Dahlan?

Riza Aziz tidak bodoh. Beliau membayar US$60 juta agar US$540 juta dapat dipulangkan kepada syarikat beliau untuk digunakan.  Beliau mungkin kerugian US$60 juta tetapi beliau untung US$480 juta.  Yang bodoh adalah bontot-bontot lembu yang masih percaya beliau dan bapa tiri beliau telah lakukan jenayah sedang CIVIL forfeiture suit adalah saman sivil, bukan jenayah.

7. Kalau Najib tidak bersalah kenapa pula FBI / DOJ memburu kapal layar mewah Equanimity kepunyaan Jo Lo, yang FBI menuduh telah dibeli dengan RM1 BILLION (US$250 Juta) wang yang dicuri daripada 1MDB. Dan kemudian FBI telah merampas kapal layar mewah itu di perairan Indonesia. JoLo adalah sahabat karib Najib dan anak tirinya Riza Aziz.

FBI/DOJ telah memburu kapal Equinimity sebab ianya tersenarai sebagai aset yang mungkin telah dibeli dengan wang yang kononnya diseleweng dari 1MDB sedangkan 1MDB itu sendiri tidak kehilangan wang.  Kapal tersebut tidak ada kena-mengena dengan 1MDB dan tidak dibeli dengan wang 1MDB. Jho Low mungkin adalah sahabat Riza Aziz tetapi bukan sahabat karib Najib Razak. Hanya bontot-bontot lembu yang mengatakan demikian.

8. Kalau Najib tidak bersalah, kenapa pula Kerajaan Malaysia TIDAK MAHU MENGAKU, MENUNTUT DAN SETERUSNYA MENERIMA BALIK wang RM430 Juta (CHF 100 juta) yang ingin dipulangkan oleh pendakwaraya Switzerland kepada Malayaia yang mereka berkata telah dirampas berkaitan wang yang telah dicuri daripada 1MDB? Switzerland kata duit RM430 Juta itu duit Malaysia.

Saya pening sedikit membaca soalan ini.  Switzerland kata wang yang dirampas itu adalah hak milik 1MDB tetapi 1MDB tidak kehilangan sebarang wang.  Apa gunanya mengaku perkara yang tidak berlaku?  Kerajaan Malaysia perlu berpegang kepada fakta, tidak seperti bontot-bontot lembu.

9. Kerajaan Singapura pula telah penjarakan lima atau enam orang yang terlibat dalam kecurian wang 1MDB. Kerajaan Singapura juga telah batalkan lesen perniagaan dua buah bank antarabangsa yang terlibat dalam kes money laundering 1MDB. Apakah kerajaan Singapura begitu bodoh menyiasat jenayah atau kecurian wang 1MDB yang tidak wujud atau sebenarnya tidak pernah berlaku ?

Mereka yang dipenjarakan di Singapura dipenjarakan atas kesalahan money-laundering (pengubahan wang), bukannya mencuri wang 1MDB.  Lesen bank-bank tersebut dibatalkan atas sebab bank-bank tersebut telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah peraturan-peraturan yang ditetapkan oleh Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), bukannya kerana mencuri wang 1MDB.  Mereka-mereka yang dipenjarakan bukan pekerja atau pengarah 1MDB dan tiada kena-mengena dengan 1MDB.

Seah Yew Foong dan Yak Yew Chee didapati bersalah kerana mengubah wang US$153 juta yang diterima dari syarikat milik Jho Low di iaitu Good Star dan dimasukkan ke dalam akaun BSI Singapore milik Abu Dhabi-Kuwait-Malaysia Investment Corp., iaitu sebuah akaun yang boleh diakses oleh Jho Low.  Tiga hari kemudian, sejumlah US$153 juta telah dipindahkan dari akaun tersebut ke akaun BSI Singapore milik bapa Jho Low, Tan Sri Larry Low Hock Peng yang suatu ketika dahulu dikatakan salah seorang kroni Mahathir.

Dua hari kemudian, sejumlah US$150 juta dipindahkan dari akaun Low Hock Peng ke sebuah akaun BSI milik Jho Low. Kemudian, sejumlah US$110 juta dipindahkan dari akaun tersebut ke akaun Swiss sebuah syarikat bernama Selune yang dimilikinya.

Tiada di mana-mana dalam dokumen mahkamah Singapura yang menyebut nama 1MDB mahupun nama Najib Razak semasa dan selepas perbicaraan tersebut selesai pada tahun 2016.

The Singapore government is so stupid? Kerajaan Singapura pun salah?

Kerajaan Singapura tidak bodoh. Yang bodoh adalah bontot-bontot lembu yang membuat dakwaan-dakwaan tidak berasas, dan bontot-bontot lembu yang mempercayai dakwaan-dakwaan tersebut.

Rupanya hanya Najib seorang yang betul dalam skandal besar ini. Satu dunia yang lain semuanya salah.

Bukan begitu kesudahannya.  Satu dunia yang lain, termasuk Najib Razak, tidak salah.  Yang salah hanyalah bontot-bontot lembu yang saya sebutkan di atas.

Posted on

Erectile Dysfunction

My post yesterday had put lots of knots in many Opposition supporters’ (Penyokong Pembangkang or PEPEK for short) knickers, it seems.  Some questioned why is it that they cannot find reference to some of the things I had written.

The answer is simple – I attended the talk by US Supreme Court Advocate Appellate Tom Goldstein. So did some others whom I saw, like Azmi Arshad, blog owner of Another Brick In The Wall, Tun Faisal of JASA, members of the media (both mainstream and electronic).

The talk was supposed to start at 9am and was to finish at 11am as the auditorium was to be used by another session.  Tom arrived late, around 10.25am and was given only half an hour to speak with five minutes of Q&A session.  Among the questions asked during the very short Q&A session were “Does the US plan to do away with the jury system in its trials” and “The 1MDB is a civil forfeiture suit, why is there now a criminal action being pursued”.

Both were answered by Tom as per the media reports.  And then it was announced that they had to cut the session short because the auditorium had been booked for another programme.

Tom was ushered into a meeting room where he and the Dean of the Faculty of Law had their coffee break, together with some UiTM staff.  The media chaps were ushered to a different place to have their food.  Only Tun Faisal, a journalist from The Mole, and I, managed to bring our food and sat at the same table with Tom.  Tun Faisal and I asked the questions on IPIC, SRC and 1MDB where Tom mentioned the complexity of the case and why there is absolutely no progress whatsoever – the complainants who are in no way linked to 1MDB lodged a complaint with the US Department of Justice saying that money had been siphoned from the 1MDB, to which the 1MDB had denied losing any money.  So to whom should the money be returned to if no one has lost any?

And to this I asked Tom if this is the reason it has taken the DoJ so long to actually initiate something, he answered with a simple, “Yes.”  In other words, the probe has come to a standstill. The only reason they have asked a stay on the civil investigation and changed it to a criminal one is to NOT allow any of the money to be spent.  To date, no one has been named as criminal defendants, not one charge has been filed, and not one targetted to be investigated on a criminal charge.

Which brings me to this:  the Attorney-General of the US, in his speech at the Global Forum on Asset Recovery in Washington DC yesterday said that 1MDB is kleptocracy at its worst.

The headline that had gotten all the PEPEKs wet

Mr Sessions said that allegedly corrupt officials and their associates had reportedly used the 1MDB funds for a “lavish spending spree” such as US$200 million for real estate in South California and New York, US$130 million in artwork, US$100 million in an American music label and a US$265 million yacht.

1MDB officials allegedly laundered more than US$4.5 billion in total, he said, through a complex web of opaque transactions and shell companies with bank accounts in various countries such as Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg and the US.

This is nothing new. This is something we have heard which was read live on cable TV by Mr Sessions’s predecesor. And this brings me to a question – if this is so, why hasn’t the US DoJ taken any action for the past year and a half?  This only underscores what Tom Goldstein had said – the complaint said the money was siphoned from 1MDB, but the 1MDB said they have not lost a single cent.  So, whose money did these “1MDB officials” siphon?

Those assets have been frozen since mid-2016 and still have not been returned to 1MDB. Why is that?  All the people that have been charged, tried and sent to jail for laundering “1MDB money” in Singapore and elsewhere in the world were bank employees who flouted the local financial regulations.  Yet, not a single 1MDB employee has ever been charged in those courts.  Why?

PEPEKs are dancing today thinking that something new had been revealed, when it is just old news being repeated. No doubt that they money and assets the US DoJ confiscated last year represents kleptocracy at its worst.  But what has that to do with 1MDB? Can we have the money back now if they are 1MDB’s?

The PEPEKs think that they have won the argument, but really they are just dry PEPEKs, giving an erectile dysfunction to the celebration.

Posted on

What 1MDB Suit?

“There is currently no action against 1MDB. Only against properties thought to have been procured using money belonging to 1MDB,” said Thomas C Goldstein, Advocate Appellate, US Supreme Court said when asked about the civil forfeiture action against 1MDB.

Tom Goldstein was answering question raised during his talk on “Criminal Litigation in the United States of America” at the UiTM Faculty of Law today.

He said that based on the US Constitution, no one should be deprived of their assets without due process of the law, and all due processes of the law must have a hearing concluded before assets can be forfeited.

“The DoJ, based on the complaint, is just tracing the money and think it may be linked to 1MDB. Right now, there is no suggestion of any criminal target,” he added.

Tom Goldstein is one of the US’s most experienced Supreme Court practitioners and his representations span virtually all of the US Federal Law.

As arguing counsel in the Court, Tom has prevailed in cases involving arbitration, bankruptcy, civil procedure, disability law, employment discrimination, the Fourth Amendment, free speech, habeas corpus, immigration, labour, securities, and trademarks.

When asked to whom would the DoJ return the seized money to, Tom explained that the issue has put the DoJ in limbo as the 1MDB has said that the money is not theirs, whereas the case is based on money taken from 1MDB, made by complainants that do not represent 1MDB.

“The DoJ has recently to put on hold civil forfeiture lawsuits against assets acquired (by Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low), because pursuing these may have “an adverse effect” on its ability to conduct the criminal investigation. What the DoJ is doing is it is trying to prevent the money from dissipating by starting a criminal action,” Tom explained. “But right now there is very little activity pertaining to the case and no one has been named as criminal targets.”

Asked if this (that 1MDB says the money is not theirs) is the reason it has taken the DoJ so long to actually initiate something, he answered with a simple, “Yes.”

“A huge amount of money made its way into the US, and the DoJ is interested to know where is the source of this money. It is not a criminal case and an escalation into one will only make life more difficult for them as there has been no precedent. No one has been named in the civil forfeiture suit. If a criminal case were to be developed then it would be a classical criminal case and the burden of proof falls on the DoJ that it has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that crime has been committed,” Tom added.

In addition to practicing law, Tom has taught Supreme Court Litigation at Harvard Law School since 2004, and previously taught the same subject at Stanford Law School for nearly a decade.

Tom is also the co-founder of SCOTUSblog – a website devoted to comprehensive coverage of the Court – which is the only weblog ever to receive the Peabody Award.

Posted on

What Is The DAP Afraid Of?

“Bla bla bla bla bla…”

In a somewhat anticipated move, Emperor Lim Kit Siang has come to the defence of his breadwinner, Tokong Lim Guan Eng.

In an article published by left-leaning Malaysiakini Kit Siang, in a reaction to MACC’s Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad’s ultimatum to Guan Eng, said that Dzulkifli should not fall victim to hubris and power, quoting Lord Acton’s axiom “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Quoting the US Department of Justice (DoJ) suit Kit Siang said that from page 339 to page 348 of the DoJ document that it traced the RM2.6 billion that made its way to Najib Razak’s account from 1MDB.

Funny enough audits of 1MDB’s accounts found no money missing, the DoJ has never named Najib Razak as anyone that is involved in the suit, and that PAC members from the Opposition, including Kit Siang’s mule Pony Tua, signed off the PAC 1MDB report saying that Najib Razak is NOT accountable for 1MDB’s dealings.

Pony Tua may have said something to reporters after signing the report but he should have resigned from the PAC and refused to sign should he have had any doubt or disagreement with the findings of the PAC.

He did not.

So why is Kit Siang contradicting his own people in the PAC that includes Pony Tua?

As for the axiom “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, Kit Siang should first and foremost look into the mirror and tell that to himself.

I am very sure he remembers what he did to people like Goh Hock Guan, Lee Lam Thye, Dr Soarian, Chan Teck Chan, Seow Hun Khin, Chin Nyuk Soo and Goh Lin Eam and tens others.  These are people Kit Siang ousted from DAP when he felt threatened by their presence. Does Kit Siang dare to tell Kerk Chee Yee how his late father Kerk Kim Hock’s 2004 General Elections efforts was sabotaged by him, which practically ended Kim Hock’s political career?

What about the gag order issued on DAP vice chairman M Kulasegaran after he gave the party’s Perak secretary Nga Kor Ming a dressing down over his alleged abuse of power?  Did M Kula not dress down Nga Kor Ming because of the latter’s wife’s company, Ethan and Elton Sdn Bhd, was awarded the tender to tailor lounge suits for Ipoh city councillors when Pakatan Rakyat was in power in Perak?

The award was given despite the company having charged the highest price for the suits. Rivals also pointed to the fact that the company was registered with the Companies Commission Malaysia barely 42 days after Pakatan formed the state government.

And now that his son has been charged on two accounts of corrupt practices, why is he not giving the MACC the same support he accorded when the MACC was investigating Najib Razak?  Ask Guan Eng to also look into the mirror and tell himself that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

When the MACC arrested and charged BN’s exco members in Johor and recently one of its powerful veterans, did BN cry like the DAP does?  When Khir Toyo was charged in court and subsequently jailed for the same offence your son has committed, did BN cry like you?

So, remember what you said to the rakyat in 2015, Kit Siang? “This situation of police harassing MACC must stop!”

So now stop harrassing the MACC and let them do their work. What is it that you are so afraid of?

Posted on

Pulau Pinang Should Be Left To Be Plundered By Guan Eng

A dog cooked alive by people in China

A day ago, a video of a dog being cooked alive in a large wok made its rounds on the Internet.  As sickening as it was, I cannot help but think of the helpless dog as Pulau Pinang, the cook Lim Guan Eng, and the laughing crowd are the Pulau Pinang voters whom has allowed outsider Guan Eng to continue to plunder the island, literally screwing the locals painfully from behind while telling them that it is for their own good while only he is pleasured by the act.

Coincidentally today is the anniversary of Corrupt Minister Lim Guan Eng’s arrest for corrupt practices including using his office and position to influence the price of a property that he had bought.

So much for boasting that he would fight back to clear his name, he has been avoiding trial by claiming many things including that the Act used to arrest him is unconstitutional.  Even blabber-mouthed Tony Pua dared not walk the talk to ask the Tokong to step down from his post – and this has been almost 16 months to the date ball-less Tony Pua said to reporters that the Tokong should step down if charged for corruption.

Since then it has been “ops normal” for the Tokong, running Pulau Pinang like his little own business, selling virtually everything except the backside of the people of Pulau Pinang thus far. He is still not done screwing them from behind.

Not only has he not been able to answer or refute any of the allegations made by the Barisan Nasional, especially on the Pulau Pinang Tunnel project issue, he has been asking his little dog Chow Kow Yeow to do the answering for him, and like the dog in the video Chow Kow Yeow got into hot soup – literally.

Today, a former Pulau Pinang City councillor Dr Lim Mah Hui made a shocking revelation.  In an open letter, today Dr Lim claims that

a developer wants to develop a big project to build 600 high-rise apartments, even though 43 percent of their land exceeds a 25-degree gradient and qualifies as sensitive hill land.

This land was registered as hill land under the Pulau Pinang Land Conservation Act 1960, which means no development is allowed.

However, the developer bought the land in 2010 anyway and applied to the Pulau Pinang State Government in 2011 for the land to be released from protected status.

In the same year in Dec 2011, the State Planning Committee (SPC) approved the release and allowed the development in to commence the same month upon payment of just RM1 million from the developer.

Dr Lim made headlines in December 2016 when he walked out of the City Council before the expiration of his term.

In March last year, he was involved in a heated exchange with Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng during an NGO dialogue session over parking woes, road-widening projects and the council enforcement’s car-towing figures. Later in June 2016 he sent a letter to Unesco expressing fears that the PTMP would jeopardise George Town’s World Heritage Site status while in July 2016, Dr Lim criticised the state’s Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) and suggested an alternative better, cheaper, faster transport master plan.

According to Dr Lim, the gazetted Penang Structure Plan explicitly forbade development on sensitive hill land unless it is a “special project” approved by the state government. How a housing project could have been approved by MBPP under the rubric of “special project” is the subject of contention in this legal case.

What does Tokong care about the plight of the lower income group in Pulau Pinang? As long as money can be made to finance the ever-growing state government expenditure, everything is alright to them.  People who love the greenery, and fishermen can go fly kites for all he care.

The T-shirt worn by the wife of a Queensbay fisherman says it all

Not only has the Pulau Pinang state government’s operating expenditure has risen exponientially compared to when DAP took over the island from BN, parking charges, rates and water tariffs too have been on the increase to finance the extravagance. Just look at how much the spending by the state government under the Tokong has increased in just nine years.

The last seven years under BN compared to the years under DAP

To divert the attention of the people, Tokong today tried to stir the almost dead DoJ issue.  Despite the DoJ documents not listing MO1 or wife of MO1 as people affected by the investigation, and documented evidence that the misappropriated money used by Jho Low et al to purchase priceless goods have nothing to do with the 1MDB, he insists that that is the cause of the economy going bad leading to the government having to implement the GST which in turn led to the higher cost of living.

This does not explain why Saudi Arabia has decided to impose VAT in January 2018 and began a BR1M-like cash-transfer program for its lower income citizens.

Tokong’s argument also does not explain why the Singaporean economy will continue to be sluggish even without a 1MDB.

Nor does it explain oil-rich Venezuela’s extremely high inflation rates and the near-collapse of its economy.

Al Jazeera’s graph showing Venezuela’s volcanic inflation rate

The Tokong also dismissed claims that the DoJ suit is Opposition-driven, and was planned by the Opposition.

He said the United States could have used military might and need not file civil suits in its own country if it wanted to topple the Malaysian government.

US can use military instead of legal suit to topple government screams DAP and Malaysian Incite

This prompted Parti Cina Malaysia’s Deputy President, Datuk Huan Cheng Guan, to lodge a police report against the statement made by Tokong.

Datuk Huan Cheng Guan posing with his police report made against the Tokong

I don’t know if the Pulau Pinang people who are not like Penang Lang Datuk Huan Cheng Guan actually care if the Tokong wants gwei loh to run the country. Gawky Ah Lians who support the DAP and blackened their profile pics on Facebook during the last general election won’t mind having gwei lohs running the country either.  It probably makes them feel extra superior.

Of course, Pulau Pinang people have a price, and a cheap one too.  For a mere RM1 million, like Tokong, you too can screw their behind.  And they seem to love how Tokong does it to their backside while he continues to steal from them.

Posted on

Latest Pakatan Play Using DoJ’s Suit

There are times when I wonder how neither Ramadhan and Syawal are no longer sacrosanct to the people from the Pakatan Harapan.

The latest blank shot was fired by Fahmi Fadzil claims that the Pakatan has nothing to do with the civil suit by the US Department of Justice.

There is a pattern here actually.  The RM2.6 billion issue was first brought up by  the Wall Street Journal on 2 July 2015, exactly 14 days before Hari Raya.

This was followed a year later by the first civil suit by the DoJ on 20 July 2016, again, 14 days after Hari Raya.

That the latest suit comes a week before Hari Raya is of no surprise to me. It is just timed for the Pakatan to have something to talk about while diverting the real issues of the abuses committed by their overlords in the DAP as well as the problems of the self-proclaimed champion of Pakatan, the PPBM.

The overlords in the DAP, a party that virtually submits to the wishes of the Emperor Lim Kit Siang and Tokong Lim Guan Eng  has been facing questions from the Penang Barisan Nasional and esteemed blogger Miss Lim Sian See.  All the questions have thus far gone unanswered. The self-proclaimed champion of Pakatan, PPBM, is facing an internal strife where the leadership cannot even answer questions posed by those in their own ranks, who were jumped upon by Mukhriz who slammed them for criticising the leadership.  It was alright, however, for his father to criticise the leadership of UMNO TWICE that resulted in a trust deficit in the party, and the departure of one President.

Like his father, Mukhriz Mudah Lupa

I doubt that there is anything to worry about the latest DoJ suit.  It still is a civil suit for the forfeiture of assets and is far from being a criminal suit.  And while direct reference has been made towards Jho Low, most other characters mentioned in the suit are monikers (for lack of a better word) to refer to people who are NOT being investigated regarding the case.

But of course, people like Fahmi Fadzil insists that someone be brought to justice, and charged in a court of law in Malaysia.  On what charge?  What crime has taken place and where?  Even the DoJ says it is a civil suit for something that happened within the American financial system.  How do we even try an American case in Malaysia?  So does Pakatan speak about all this with no knowledge or any hint of any comprehension of the legal system?

Name MO1 – this I saw on Twitter and Facebook several times.  Some have been urging he DoJ to just name who MO1 is and drag the person to court.  Why ask? I thought Rahman Dahlan explained to BBC last year that MO1 refers to Najib Razak.  So what? Isn’t that what Pakatan and its supporters wanted to hear?  Or is it because of the strong culture in Pakatan and its supporters of sucking up to the ‘white man‘ that you need a white man to say it out loud?

Now, let me repeat this. MO1 is called MO1 because MO1 is NOT being investigated.  In the suit document I do not see any Najib Razak or MO1 or Rosmah Mansor being named as persons or institutions that might be affected by the suit.

Do you see any MO1 mentioned?

Therefore, if MO1 is not affected by the investigation and suit, why is there a need to summon the Ambassador of the United States to Malaysia?

And yes, Singapore has fined, charged, jailed, banned some people and banks for money laundering of 1MDB money.  Was that done by Malaysians or Malaysian officials?

Five banks were fined for money laundering the money.  One ex-manager from Swiss Bank was jailed and fined. Another was jailed 18 weeks for not reporting transactions related to Jho Low.  If they want to launder Jho Low’s money in their country, what has that to do with 1MDB?

And isn’t making statements like “And lest we forget, the aim of the civil forfeiture is to return the money stolen back to the Malaysian people” malicious?  Perhaps Fahmi Fadzil can enlighten us which money of the rakyat’s that has been stolen?  As far as audits performed by the government and renowned audit firms, all 1MDB money has been accounted for.  And mind you, monies borrowed by 1MDB to make more money were not from the rakyat’s coffers.  Unlike the bailouts of cronies by Pakatan’s Supreme-Leader-once-Enemy Mahathir, no public fund was ever used by the 1MDB to make money, save for the paid-up capital when setting up the company.

Also the following statement made by Fahmi Fadzil:

“It is clear that Malaysians demand the truth – about what really happened in 1MDB; about the billions of ringgit allegedly siphoned by certain individuals; about diamonds and other expensive things bought allegedly using billions stolen from the Malaysian people.“

Again, audits of the 1MDB has shown that no money is missing from 1MDB’s coffers.  So how can there be billions of ringgit siphoned by any individual from the Malaysian people?  Walk the talk, Fahmi. Show us the billions siphoned from the Malaysian people.  Talk is cheap.  Bullshit s cheaper.

Diamonds.  Well, who has the diamonds?  What was Fahmi Fadzil implying? That the wife of the MO1 received diamonds?  There has been no proof whasoever that Rosmah received any diamond ring from Jho Low.  If she did, is it wrong for a person to receive gifts? When you receive a present from your father, do you ask him where he got the money to buy that present from?

Jho Low did buy his mother diamonds though.

Maybe Pakatan should drag Jho Low’s mother to court for receiving a gift from his son

The only story about the wife of MO1 receving a diamond ring only came from one of the jokers in Pakatan.  The most famous joker who lost four court cases for slander.

Pakatan’s Chief Joker

My only guess why Salleh Said Keruak wrote as such is that he, as I am, was angry that story about a civil suit by the DoJ that makes no mention of the MO1 being investigated, is being skewed by Fahmi Fadzil et al to make it look to the rakyat as if there has been a wrongdoing by the MO1 and the wife of the MO1.  Only brainless monkeys would continue to believe the lies that have been dished out by the Pakatan.

And as for Fahmi Fadzil’s call for Jho Low to be tried in Malaysia, I hope he does have a brain.  What has he stolen from Malaysia?

Eager to divert attention from the problems faced by Pakatan, Fahmi tries to look smart and suggest stupid things. Please continue with this stupidity, Fahmi.  You are definitely doing BN a favour.

Eat monkey brain
Posted on

Comprehension Needed

Malaysians hardly read. Nor do they have the brain capacity to either process information or store information. This is why Malaysians have a very short attention span, memory retaining problem and are also gullible.

Example 1

When Malaysians read they have this superb speed-reading capability that they have used during their schooldays especially during last minute slogging sessions days before the SPM examinations. They will pick up key words, process these words in a crude manner that would make sense to only them and that forms their understanding.

So when the Attorney-General of the US Loretta Lynch conducted the press conference on the misappropriation of 1MDB sovereign funds, Malaysians pick up certain keywords, and they are:

  1. Riza Aziz
  2. Stepson
  3. 1MDB
  4. Stolen
  5. People of Malaysia
  6. Malaysian Official 1

Simpletons put these six words together and they have a conjuncture that says “Malaysian Official 1 and stepson Riza Aziz together with 1MDB stole from the people of Malaysia.”

I would have termed them as nincompoops or morons but for the purpose of this article I’d like to make them sound like a bunch of professional morons – hence the use of the term simpletons.

The DoJ are applying for the seizure of assets “associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated” from 1MDB.

This is about people who took money from funds meant for 1MDB to profiteer and for their personal consumption.

There are four people named in this civil forfeiture lawsuit and they are Riza Aziz who is the stepson of Najib Razak, Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, and Abu Dhabi government officials Khadem al-Qubaisi and Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny.

The four named above would now have to respond to the complaints filed in the lawsuit (show cause if you must, for the simpletons) to say to the DoJ that they purchased assets through legal means. This lawsuit can take up to seven years before it would come to a conclusion.

My point here is, dear simpletons, Najib Razak whom you have linked Malaysian Official 1 to be, is not named in this lawsuit. He is not a party to this process. Neither are 1MDB Official 1, 1MDB Official 2, and 1MDB Official 3.

Neither is anything missing or seized from 1MDB as 1MDB is also NOT a party to this civil lawsuit. In a larger  scheme of things, it is 1MDB that is the victim of misappropriation and not a collusion partner to the four mentioned above.

(Note for Simpletons: please read this paragraph 50 times). As Malaysians also have problems retaining memory, it is important to remember that the criminal investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police into the administration and governance of the 1MDB based on the PAC report is still ongoing. This is the same PAC report that has cleared Najib Razak from any wrongdoing and was signed in absolute agreement by its members which includes DAP lawbreaker Tony Pua. To add to that, Najib Razak is not being subjected to any investigation as announced not only in Malaysia and the US, but also in Singapore and Switzerland and a couple other countries. (Simpletons now go back to the beginning of this paragraph).

Oh! Talk about having short memory:

Example 2


Fatigue, mood swings, absent-mindedness all come with that dreadful word MENOPAUSE. It also comes with age. So if you are 64 and menopausal absent-mindedness probably comes as a double-whammy. That is why I can forgive Wan Azizah for her episodes of absent-mindedness.

She forgot that Najib Razak is not under any form of investigation or lawsuit, yet calls for Najib Razak to go on leave. Her absent-mindedness has made her forgot about one person whom have abused his position (much like her husband did prior to 1998) for personal gains and has actually been charged in a court of law! Did Wan Azizah call for this person to go on leave?

So, Wan Azizah is menopausal. But what has Tony Pua got to say for himself?


I don’t hear any call from Tony Pua asking Lim Guan Eng after the latter was charged in court. He can’t claim to be menopausal as he was born in Batu Pahat 44 years ago as was Guan Eng’s father, Lim Kit Siang. Furthermore, Tony is a man.

Or maybe not.


Lim Guan Eng had personally benefitted from the purchase of the bungalow on Jalan Pinhorn at a much lower price than its actual value. Using his position to interfere or influence the price of the bungalow. If he sells this bungalow tomorrow, then he would big making a huge some of money, thanks to his position as the Chief Minister of Penang that he has thus far been very reluctant to let go.

We are also still waiting for the documents pertaining to the proposed third Penang bridge that the Works Ministry has asked for. Let us also not forget about the RM305 million paid for a feasibility study for a RM6.3 billion tunnel linking Georgetown and Butterworth! RM305 million could have gotten the marginalised Chinese, Indian and Malay people of Penang 7,625 low cost affordable homes that would house at least 45,750 marginalised Penangites if they are priced at RM40,000 per unit! 

So let us not digress from the main attention here which is the corrupted State Government of Pulau Pinang that is led by its Corrupted Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng who has been charged in court!

Najib Razak? Najib Razak has not done anything wrong as far as at least four nations are concerned and should just go about his business of developing the country as usual.

Posted on

Ejakulasi Pramatang


Saya tergelak besar apabila membaca cerita-cerita awal yang keluar di media massa dan elektronik berkenaan “rampasan harta milik 1MDB” yang kini digembar-gemburkan oleh mereka-mereka yang:

  • Tidak gemar membaca isi kandungan sesuatu penulisan, hanya tajuk utama,
  • Suka berkongsi pautan URL tanpa mengetahui isi kandungan, dan,
  • Membaca hanya kata kunci seperti rampasan, 1MDB, Malaysian Official 1, WSJ, dan terus membuat rumusan bahawa Najib Razak telah mencuri wang rakyat dari 1MDB.

Kepada yang ada masalah ejakulasi awal, wang yang telah disalahgunakan datangnya dari IPIC dan bukannya 1MDB. Wang yang diperolehi oleh Red Granite adalah dari IPIC.

Belum ada sesiapa yang didakwa di mahkamah, jauh sekali telah berlakunya rampasan harta milik Red Granite.

Mari kita membuat sedikit pentelaahan:

MEMAHAMI SAMAN SIVIL YANG DIFAILKAN JABATAN KEADILAN AMERIKA SYARIKAT:
Dokumen Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat memerlukan masa untuk membaca sepenuhnya namun berikut adalah ringkasan daripada dokumen itu dan sidang media yang dibuat oleh Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat:
Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat (DOJ) telah memfailkan saman sivil bagi menyita aset yang mereka percaya ada kaitan dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) daripada empat individu di bawah Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy.
S1: Siapakah empat individu itu?
Mereka ialah anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz; ahli perniagaan rakyat Malaysia, Jho Low; bekas pengarah urusan IPIC- syarikat milik kerajaan Abu Dhabi, Khadem Al Qubaisi yang juga bekas Pengerusi Aabar Investments PJS dan Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny yang bertanggungjawab menjalankan urusan dengan 1MDB pada masa itu.
S2: Apakah itu Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy?
Ia adalah satu inisiatif yang dimulakan pada tahun 2010 oleh Kerajaan Amerika Syarikat melalui Jabatan Keadilan negara itu bertujuan untuk menyita dan mengambil semula aset di dalam negara itu yang disyaki Jabatan Keadilan mempunyai kaitan kepada kegiatan rasuah daripada negara asing dan mengembalikannya kepada negara asal.
S3: Mengapa DOJ menyiasat kes ini?
Pada Mac 2015, DOJ menerima aduan daripada Sarawak Report. Lanjutan daripada itu, mereka turut menerima aduan daripada penyokong setia Tun Mahathir, Khairuddin Abu Hassan.
S4: Apa sebenarnya yang difailkan DOJ terhadap empat individu terbabit dan apa akan terjadi selepas ini?
DOJ telah memfailkan kes sivil bagi memohon mahkamah menyita aset 3 individu. Mahkamah kemudian akan memeriksa jika aset terbabit turut dituntut oleh pihak lain. Jika tiada pihak lain menuntut aset terbabit, maka mahkamah akan meminta 
DOJ membuktikan aset terbabit sama ada dicuri atau diperolehi dengan cara jenayah.
S5: Adakah Perdana Menteri turut didakwa?
Tidak. Perdana Menteri tidak didakwa malah tidak dinamakan dalam kes ini disebalik dakwaan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pada September 2015 kononnya Najib bimbang untuk ke luar negara kerana mungkin ditangkap Biro Siasatan Persekutuan (FBI). Ini adalah tidak benar bukan sahaja kes ini adalah kes sivil malah Najib turut tidak disebut dalam saman ini.

Namun terdapat rujukan dibuat kepada Malaysia Official 1 di mana DOJ mendakwa individu ini telah menerima dana yang berkait dengan 1MDB.
S6: Adakah sesiapa akan dipenjarakan jika aset dapat disita?
Tidak. Ini adalah kes sivil dan bukannya kes jenayah. Jika mahkamah menyebelahi DOJ, aset akan disita. Tiada pemenjaraan atau pertuduhan jenayah.
S7: Jika mahkamah membenarkan aset disita, apakah akan terjadi kepada aset terbabit?
DOJ akan mengembalikan aset terbabit kepada pihak yang dipercayai pemilik asal, dan dalam kes ini, 1MDB.
S7: Adakah aset yang dibeli itu adalah daripada wang yang dicuri daripada 1MDB?
1MDB telah dan secara konsisten menegaskan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat memperincikan ke mana wang disalurkan. Namun demikian, 1MDB kini dalam pertikaian dengan IPIC di mana 1MDB tetap dengan pendirian yang mereka telah membayar atau mendepostikan atau menjamin sehingga USD6 bilion oleh sebuah syarikat bernama Aabar Investments PJS BVI selepas menerima arahan daripada Pengerusi Aabar ketika itu, Khadem Al Qubaisi dan juga bekas Pengarah Urusan.
IPIC mempertikaikan ia memiliki Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) seterusnya menafikan ia meneria dana terbabit daripada 1MDB. Pertikaian ini kini dibawa ke Pusat Arbitrasi London dan akan mengambil masa berbulan. Apapun, 1MDB sangat yakin mereka akan memenangi kes ini dan akan dapat memperoleh semula wang terbabit, dan sebab itulah 1MDB sebelum ini enggan membayar faedah bagi bon USD3.5 bilion biarpun berupaya berbuat demikian serta membolehkan penjaminan bon berkenaan oleh IPIC dan kini dalam proses arbitrasi.
S8: Jika wang itu tidak dicuri, jadi mengapa DOJ bertindak ke atas aduan dibuat?
Adalah tidak mustahil wang yang dibayar 1MDB kepada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) yang dikawal Khadem dan turut dinafikan IPIC memilikinya, telah digunakan untuk membiayai pelbagai pelaburan di Amerika Syarikat termasuk hartanah, perfileman, karya seni dan syarikat.
S9: Berapa nilai aset yang terlibat dalam kes DOJ ini?

Tiada jumlah spesifik yang disahkan namun laporan daripada New York Times dan WSJ mendakwa ia bernilai hingga USD1 bilion.
S10: Mengapa anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz terlibat?

WSJ sebelum ini melaporkan yang penyiasat percaya syarikat perfileman RIza Aziz, Red Granite menerima USD155 juta dalam bentuk pinjaman daripada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) di mana kebanyakkannya disalurkan bagi membiayai filem yang diterbitkan pada 2013, ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ dan bagi membeli hartanah.
WSJ mendakwa dokumen menunjukkan tiga pindahan wang dibuat kepada Red Granite Capital pada 2012, USD60 juta, USD45 juta dan USD50 juta.
Daripada jumlah itu, USD105 juta telah digunakan Red Granite sebagai pinjaman manakala USD50 juta dipindahkan kepada syarikat melalui pihak ketiga.
“Menurut mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan dan 1MDB, antara pihak ketiga itu ialah Telina Holdings Inc, sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di British Virgin Islands oleh Al Husseiny dan bosnya, Khadem Al Qubaisi.” (Kedua penama ini disebut sebagai antara individu disaman DOJ).
Menurut WSJ, pinjaman USD50 juta daripada Telina Holdings sudahpun dibayar semula, memetik mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan itu.
Seorang jurucakap Red Granite memberitahu WSJ, syarikat itu sudah membayar pinjaman dan akan terus membuat pembayaran kepada semua pinjaman mereka.
“Red Granite tidak mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai dana daripada Aabar adalah mencurigakan dan yakin dana pinjaman itu adalah sah.
“Apa yang Red Granite sudah lakukan dan akan meneruskan usaha menerbitkan filem yang berjaya yang pernah memperolehi lebih daripada USD825 juta pulangan daripada tayangan seluruh dunia.
S11: Jika ia adalah satu pinjaman atau pelaburan ke dalam Red Granite di mana sebahagian atau sepenuhnya sudah dibayar daripada sebuah filem yang berjaya, mengapa pula Riza Aziz dijadikan sasaran kepada saman sivil ini?
Di Amerika Syarikat, jika anda memperoleh keuntungan daripada dana yang DOJ syaki disalurkan daripada sumber tidak sah, ia dipanggil ‘pengambilan untung / pencatutan, maka keuntungan yang diperolehi juga adalah tidak sah dan boleh disita, iaitu menjana pendapatan daripada dana haram. Ini berbeza daripada mencuri wang.
DOJ kemudian perlu membuktikan Red Granite menyedari dana atau pinjaman yang diterima adalah tidak sah.
S12: Bagaimana pun dengan pelaburan Jho Low?
Tidak banyak didedahkan apakah aset atau nilai pelaburan yang dimiliki Jho Low, seorang pengurus dana di Amerika Syarikat namun Jho Low sebelum ini pernah mengesahkan dia memiliki sebuah hartanah di Amerika Syarikat dan mungkin turut membuat pelaburan di dalam syarikat berpengkalan di negara yang sama.
S13: Berapa lama kes sivil ini akan mengambil masa sebelum penghakiman dibuat?
Kes seumpamanya telah mengambil masa bertahun lamanya di mana kedua pihak mengemukakan pertikaian mereka di mahkamah Amerika Syarikat bagi membolehkan hakim membuat keputusannya.
S14: Adakah apa apa yang ganjil mengenai kes ini?

Ada. Secara tipikalnya, pihak yang kononnya menjadi mangsa kepada kecurian wang ini iaitu 1MDB perlu membuat aduan kepada DOJ bagi memohon jabatan itu menyita sebarang aset yang mereka percaya dibeli daripada wang yang dicuri. Dalam kes ini, 1MDB secara konsisten menyatakan tiada wang yang dicuri dan mereka dapat memperincikan setiap pelaburan atau pindahan wang namun DOJ tetap memfailkan saman sivil kononnya bagi mendapatkan kembali ‘wang yang dicuri’ biarpun ‘mangsa’ (1MDB) sudah menjelaskan tiada wang dicuri daripadanya.
S15: Macam mana pula 1MDB mengatakan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat diperincikan walhal DOJ mendakwa ia dibelanjakan dengan mewah sekali?
1MDB berurusan dengan rakan kongsi yang dimiliki kerajaan negara asing dan dana pelaburan yang sah serta diperakui bank antarabangsa. 1MDB memindahkan wang kepada mereka. Apa yang mereka lakukan selepas wang dipindahkan bukanlah di bawah kawalan atau pengetahuan 1MDB. Ia adalah tanggungjawab pihak yang menerima.

1MDB sudah memulakan proses mendapatkan semula aset daripada pihak terbabit, di mana ia melibatkan kerjasama dengan syarikat dipertikai Aabar Investment PJS Ltd yang kini sedang melalui proses arbitrasi. 1MDB yakin ia akan memberikan keputusan positif.
S16: Bagaimana pula dengan deposit yang dibuat ke dalam akaun Malaysia Official 1 sebagaimana disebutkan dalam laporan FBI?
Adalah penting untuk kita tahu, akaun ini biarpun dibuka atas nama peribadi, ia bukan untuk kegunaan peribadi di mana ia adalah satu akaun khas presiden untuk kegunaan parti dan dibenarkan oleh perlembagaan parti. Amalan ini turut diperakui Muhyiddin Yassin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnI_5pbkqs0
Malah, WSJ turut mengakui dana dalam akaun ini digunakan bagi tujuan politik dan bukannya untuk kegunaan peribadi.
TIdak pernah pada bila-bila masa, Malaysia Official 1 menerima wang daripada akaun 1MDB untuk dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadinya. DOJ mendakwa Malaysia Official 1 mengekalkan jumlah RM210 juta daripada tiga pindahan yang boleh dikaitkan dengan 1MDB.
Tiga pemindahan wang itu ialah:

1. RM60 juta (USD20 juta pada masa itu) dibayar pada 2011 (kerjasama perkongsian antara 1MDB dan PetroSaudi bermula pada 2009) daripada akaun Gabenor Riyadh ketika itu, Prince Turki Al Saud. DOJ mendakwa pembayaran RM60 juta ini pada tahun 2011 datang daripada pelaburan USD1.83 bilion yang dibuat 1MDB bagi perkongsian kerjasama dengan PetroSaudi pada 2009.
2. RM100 juta (USD30 juta pada masa itu) – dibayar pada lewat 2012 daripada akaun BlackStone Asia. DOJ mendakwa wang RM100 juta ini pada Nov 2012 adalah daripada bon USD3.5 bilion yang dikeluarkan 1MDB dan IPIC pada April 2012. Namun demikian, pemindahan ini turut disokong oleh sekeping surat setahun sebelum itu iaitu pada 2011 di mana pengirimnya menjelaskan akan memindahkan wang sehingga USD375 juta daripada beberapa akaun termasuk BlackStone Asia. Lihat https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2777406/375m-pledge-letter-to-Najib-Razak-from-HRH.pdf
3. RM50 juta – yang datang daripada RM2.08 bilion (atau terkenal dengan jumlah USD681 juta pada kadar tukaran ketika itu USD1 = RM3.05) dipindahkan pada Mac 2013, iaitu sebelum PRU13 sebelum dikembalikan pada Ogos 2013, melalui akaun Tanore. Pemindahan ini turut disokong surat daripada penderma kerabat diraja Arab Saudi di mana SPRM turut menemuramah keluarga kerabat diraja itu dan Menteri Luar Arab Saudi turut menyatakan ia adalah dana mereka. 
Saya pasti tidak pada bila-bila masa Malaysia Official 1 mengetahui asal usul sebenar dana yang dipindahkan ke dalam akaunnya. Pengetahuannya adalah berdasarkan kepada aturan tahun-tahun sebelum itu yang dibuat dengan kerajaan Arab Saudi di mana derma politik disalurkan ke akaunnya untuk kegunaan parti. Adalah penting untuk kita fahami, setiap pemindahan itu akan turut dilampirkan dengan surat daripada kerabat diraja Arab Saudi.

Ikuti perkembangan isu ini di MyNation