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.

Al Jocular

Over the last weekend Al Jazeera, through its social media account AJ Plus, published a video hinting at linking several people to the latest DoJ suit using just clips and text without showing any image of text from the DoJ document to back up its video claims.

The Qatar-based Al Jazeera’s office was closed down by Saudi authorities for supporting the Houthis is Yemen and inciting Saudi internal ranks to leave the country.

In 2013, Egypt did the same for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood organisation and spreading rumours to incite the masses.

It is doing the same now in Malaysia, probably aimed at undermining the support for the current administration in the build up to the next general elections.

I have produced a video based on the one by Al Jazeera that is being spread by haters.

Please share this:

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

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.

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:

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.

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 

History of the 1MDB

1MDB’s origins can be traced to the 2008 general election, which saw the Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN, National Front Federal Government) losing its two-thirds majority. The BN lost five states, which had an effect on the position of the menteris besar (chief ministers) of states under BN rule. In Perlis, there was a change in menteri besar said to be due to intervention by royalty.

The same thing happened in Terengganu where the Sultan was unhappy with the then menteri besar Datuk Idris Jusoh. One of the major issues was the utilisation of oil royalty amounting to more than RMI billion per annum by the Umno-Ied state and federal government agencies.

To stop the unaccountable spending of oil royalty, the Sultan, together with a few advisers, came up with the idea for the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA).

A year after its conceptualisation, TIA was established with the blessings of the state and federal governments in March 2009. It is said that as part of the “settlement” of the unaccounted-for oil royalty, the federal government gave a RMS billion guarantee to kickstart TIA.

One of the key people who had advised the’ King in establishing TIA was Low Taek Jho, a young merchant banker with strong links to the Middle East. Known as Jho Low to his friends, the young man is also said to be well connected and has done a few major corporate deals. His “lavish” lifestyle in New York was the subject of a feature article in the New York Post last month. Jho, the son of Penang businessman Datuk Larry Low – a former shareholder and director of MWE Holdings Bhd – has however denied that it was he who had splurged on a lavish celebration as had been reported.

Coming back to TIA, the idea was to establish the fund along along the lines of Mubadala Development Company, the SWF of Abu Dhabi. In fact, Khaldoon AI-Mubarak, CEO of Mubadala and chairman of Abu Dhabi Executive Affairs Authority, still sits on the board of 1MDB.

The fund size was initially targeted at RM11 billion, comprising RM5 billion from the federal government and another RM6 billion to come from the securitisation of future annual oil royalty that Terengganu gets from Petronas (the national oil corporation).

But after the initial RM5 billion, raised by a federal government guarantee, the troubles at TIA began. The state, led by Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said, wanted control over the utilisation of the money, something that went against the charter of the fund.

The funds were supposed to be managed by a professional team and overseen by a board of directors and advisers. It was a triple-layer structure to ensure the money is well spent.

But the prime movers behind the funds found out early that this was easier said than done. Subsequently, TIA became a federal entity, which gave birth to 1MDB.


Thank you Lim Sian See for the heads up!