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.

Najib Should Face Charges

 

Should he?

So said the Oversight Review Panel of the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission that met for the last time on the 24th February 2016 at 10am. The meeting lasted three hours and they concluded the meeting at 1pm.

Look at the time the above was released by The Malaysian Inciter – 7am! Now how did the ORP issue a statement before it even convened?
Suddenly, The Malaysian Inciter got blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission! That’s another big lie up there that they published!

Didn’t the ORP agreed to a statement saying Najib should face the music? The Star came out with this:

  
There is a straight denial by the Chairman of the ORP on the “statement” released to The Malaysan Inciter. The Chairman issued the following statement:

  

Therefore, not only did the ORP not issue such statement, it has also denied requesting the MACC to issue a public statement on the issues.

I have a word of advice for Rohaizat, who is the Director of Strategic Communications and Media for the MACC. The MACC is a body that is supposed to be the epitome of the word integrity. Rohaizat has none and he should just resign, discard his uniform and join the line of ladies who have nothing better to do with their mouth.

  

In the meantime the police should investigate the “ORP statement”, The Malaysian Inciter, and grill Rohaizat to see who is paying him to be such a girl. 

Pillow Talk

  
The Attorney-General has decided not to proceed with the case of the RM2.6 billion donated into a special account bearing the Prime Minister’s name as the account holder with two persons nominated to administer the account on Najib’s behalf.

That has prompted  the Director for Special Operations of the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission, Datuk Bahari Md Zin stating to the press that he will appeal on the AG’s decision. MACC also issued a press statement saying that it will forward the AG’s decision for a review by the commission’s Operations Assessment Panel (PPO).

  
As a layman, I now feel that the MACC is being run and managed by amateurs. They should first and foremost know that the Attorney-General has the final say whether or not a case should be instituted, conducted or discontinued, other than cases that come under the Syariah Law, the native court, or a court-martial. This is specified in Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

MACC’s PPO does not have the jurisdiction nor authority to review the decision of the Attorney-General. It only acts as a “check and balance” mechanism for cases that are being investigated as well as cases that have been acknowledged by the commission for prosecution or cases that the commission has recommended to be closed. You can read further the terms of reference of the MACC’s PPO here.
How is it that such a body that is supposed to be run by professionals who uphold the law and theintegrity of the commisssion not know of its own limits and boundaries that it starts to act ultra vires?

There is a saying in the military that if one is a Corporal, the wife is a Sergeant. In the case of Datuk Bahri, his wife must be the Head of MACC.

 The question is, how much does Datuk Bahri’s wife know of the investigation into the RM2.6 billion donation, or of any other investigation? What kind of pillow talk have this couple been having?

Perhaps the police should investigate Datuk Bahri under Section 8(1)(d)(iv) and (e)(iv) of the Official Secrets Act, 1972, and investigate the wife under Section 8(2) of the same Act. If this is how a senior ranking officer of the MACC behaves, I wouldn’t be surprised if in wartime, he would spill everything to the enemy.

Talking about the police, the MACC has a lot to learn from this organisation from where the MACC once came from. The police has had thousands of cases deemed as “No Further Action” and you don’t see them whining on the Internet like spoilt brats or like undergraduates with alleged perforated stomach. The integrity of the MACC is virtually ZERO!

They should have their feet firmly planted on terra firma. This is not Bollywood! So start behaving professionally!