Mat Zain: ‘No doubt’ Shahrizat’s husband, children committed multiple CBT


By Clara Chooi
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 26, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 — Former senior police officer Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim asserted today that the National Feedlot Corporation’s (NFCorp) controversial condominium purchases are clear examples of CBT (criminal breach of trust), adding the Attorney-General should have “no doubt” of this when deciding whether to press charges.

Mat Zain said that based on provisions in Section 409 of the Penal Code, the husband and children of minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, who run the NFCorp, should each be slapped with numerous counts of CBT.

If convicted, the former KL CID chief said they would be liable to a jail term of between two and 20 years, whipping and a fine.

“After having sighted the NFC (National Feedlot Centre) loan agreement that was made available yesterday, coupled with the public statement by the Commercial Crimes Investigations Director (CCID), I would say that the Attorney General’s Chambers should not have any doubts in their mind now, that these are clear cut case of CBTs by agent as defined under Section 409 (of the) Penal Code.

“There’s no two ways about it. This is not like a breach of an agreement,” he said in an emailed statement to The Malaysian Insider today.

In an in intriguing twist to the ongoing NFC saga, CCID Director Datuk Syed Ismail Syed Azizan confirmed yesterday that the police would recommend CBT charges against all NFCorp directors to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Mat Zain noted that under the law, every disbursement of public funds in the NFC that was considered in violation of the loan agreement would be considered as one office.

He singled out NFCorp’s controversial condominium purchases, saying every payment for the property, whether for downpayment or instalment, would be viewed as one CBT charge.

“For example the purchase of Condo A: If the purchase of Condo A involved 10 instalments at different times, using the same fund then, they are answerable to 10 counts of CBT charges. That’s how it works.

“So it looks like Shahrizat’s husband and children have committed multiple CBTs by agents in the NFC fiasco,” he said.

NFCorp, which operates the NFC, a RM250 million federally-funded cattle-farming project, is chaired by federal minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s husband, Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail. Their three children also hold executive posts in the company.

The NFC hit the headlines after it made it into the Auditor-General’s Report last year, and has continued to hog the limelight after it was linked to Shahrizat and her family.

Since then, PKR has revealed numerous startling exposes over the scandal-ridden project, including allegations that millions of ringgit have been siphoned off for land, property and personal expenses unrelated to cattle farming.

But recently, in response to claims that NFCorp had purchased two luxury condominiums worth RM34 million in Singapore’s posh Marina Bay Suites, Shahrizat’s son Wan Shahinur Izmir had explained that the company had decided that it would make better use of the money by investing in property during a break in business operations.

The break, said Wan Shahinur Izmir, was caused by the government’s decision to suspend the construction of an abattoir that would have been rented to NFCorp. According to Pua, however, the Finance Ministry had told a parliamentary committee last November that there was no provision that permits the NFCorp to use its federal loan to purchase property.

Since the scandal exploded in the media, Shahrizat (picture) has been faced with repeated calls for her resignation, even from her colleagues in Umno. But she has insisted that the project had nothing to do with her.

The Wanita Umno chief applied for three weeks’ leave from her ministerial duties last month when new allegations of bribery surfaced. She has since resumed her duties.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced last month Putrajaya would appoint an auditor to scrutinise NFCorp’s books in light of accusations made against the company, but dismissed calls for a royal commission of inquiry into the NFC.

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:12 am

    What NF Corp tries to valiantly defend is to bring out the analogy of an ordinary borrower of bank’s monies, and the argument is “hey bank monies also public monies, the loan as stated in the loan agreement is meant for financing a specific project (say) undertaken by the company as part of its business (say, cattle farming) and if the borrower misuses it for another purpose (say use it for investment in high yield condo) the worst that can happen is a contractual breach of the loan terms warranting the bank/lender to recall the loan and sue for whatever the bank has lost- that’s all, there’s no criminal element involved as in Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT). So NF Corp draws this analogy, what’s the difference, why should it be said to have merely breached the contract committing no offence CBT had the loan come from a bank that it should be considered by police (& ex police Mat Zain) as CBT simply because the lender happens to be the govt of Malaysia/Ministry of Finance and not a commercial bank?

  2. #2 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:29 am

    The answer to that is found in the word criminal breach of trust (CBT)), with emphasis on the word, “trust”. The key element is ‘entrustment’. When one misuses property “entrusted”, CBT kicks in. Monies lent by the bank (though also in a sense public monies from deposits) is a matter of commercial and contractual arrangement between bank and borrower whereby the bank for a profit from interest lends out and if the customer defaults in not adhering to loan terms on loan purpose, it is hard to argue that the borrower has misused monies ‘entrusted’ to it even if it has misused monies lent to it! In fact it is the lender bank which has to account to regulator Bank Negara why it has not monitored or secured that loan. It’s a different complexion in case of govt soft loan from public coffers. Here there is “entrustment” of loan/public monies with NFCorp to implement a High Impact Project under 9th Malaysia Plan with the national objective of attaining 40% national self sufficiency for beef production by 2010. It’s in the loan agreement. That is why it’s a soft loan at 2% pr annum with easy terms of repayment unlike commercial rates imposed by banks. Its not meant for the company’s or any of its officers’ own self sufficiency or profit making agenda no matter that the profits may of course be argued to be easily used by the beneficiary of such a loan to facilitate loan repayment and interest servicing which incompetence in executing the project cannot!!

  3. #3 by Godfather on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:31 am

    The case can’t come to court. It will simply ensnare too many UMNOputras especially the previous 4th Floor gang. You think no “free” shares were given out for enterprises like Meatworks ? I won’t be surprised if there was a written waiver for all restrictions pertaining to the use of monies.

  4. #4 by monsterball on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:36 am

    Mat Zain made it so clear…for AG to act fast and swift…yet slow as a snail…perhaps waiting for a “voice” above to inspire him to act.
    AG responded to Saiful’s father plea to file an appeal against Anwar…and that…he did so.
    Here millions of Malaysians want crooks to be arrested and tried in court…..always seem to lack of evidences this and that.

  5. #5 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:49 am

    That it is now a matter under purview of possible CBT (as recommended by even the police) raises the political stakes and creates an intractable gridlock for the ruling party to resolve and Opposition to take pot shots. It is very difficult because of this so called norm – I would say pretext- that for the legal system to operate and accepted by public with respect and obedience, the enforcement of laws and rules must be viewed by all concerned to be of equal & fair application. No one no matter how high a station is above the law, so to speak. So that means that by this standard of equal application of law, the police recommendation is forceful : how to say no to it? On the other hand there is in operation another set of unspoken rules, running parallel to the country’s laws. These are the norms and unspoken rules behind not only the NFC scandal or controversies but those involving PKFZ, the BMF, MAS etc many of which no one had been made to account much less charged with CBT! So I think those behind NFC would say- “why single us? Is that justice? Not comparing apple and orange here but orange and orange: why only this particular orange is pushed to drop whilst others hang nicely up the tree? If this were the case the whole tree must be shaken so that all the oranges – at least those loosely connected to the branch- will have to equally drop!”

  6. #6 by k1980 on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 6:57 am

    The case will be settled out of court, with Mamakgal paying only RM3.50sen and getting to keep the RM350,000,000.00

  7. #7 by Bigjoe on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 7:04 am

    It is a time like these that Najib truly show why he is unfit for the job. When the evidence is already clear of guilty, he says its up to the AG to charge them when by law, the AG is guilty of wrong-doing if he does not prosecute.

    The entire UMNO-Perkasa/BN suffers from mass psychotic over-entitlement and it infects the civil service in large part. And they wonder why the rank&file of the civil service is unhappy about widening wage gaps?

    Even when the evidence and truth is all laid out to bear – they still find excuses for their wrong doing – just like their High-Priest of excuses Mahathir..

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 7:41 am

    The many high profile financial scandals arises because of the prevailing political patronage culture that ingrains the habit/mindset of our political elites and their cronies to use using govt (read public) monies for the benefit of one’s political party (campaign funds) and personal benefit (enrichment). Hence they have no notion of what’s a “trust” relationship as in a relationship where there’s a trustee and a beneficiary in which the trustee is “entrusted” to manage and utilise property/monies to the benefit of the beneficiary (the rakyat). For Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) to be implicated there must be this essential element of entrustment implied from someone being in position of trustee in trust to administer and use monies under his control for which that trust is breached. The difference between a bank loan for commercial project and govt soft loan for national project is in former case the bank is entrusted as trustee to lend properly and that’s why its regulated by Bank Negara, and in the latter’s case the govt is in position of trust (as trustee) to give that loan to a qualified party that will not fritter it, and the borrower (also trustee) not to misuse it in manner not beneficial to rakyat as beneficiary of that trust. Failure to grasp this is reason by NFC’s officers speak of how they could use the monies in other high yielding project to repay the govt loan and interest and even the Minister of Law, to say that the solution was just in the loan being repaid. Both responses are irrelevant as CBT occurs the moment the persons whose position implies the role of trustee, misuse the monies for which they are entrusted to administer and use for national/public benefit!

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 7:44 am

    Sorry, typo – “…Failure to grasp this is reason WHY (not “by”) NFC’s officers speak of they could use the monies..”

  10. #10 by k1980 on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 7:55 am

    Hey why you handcuff me but no handcuff the Shareezuk family

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyl2Xo_LQkJBQzFmi8k-MG3Owxjdk2RnE-Ch3rms20RFLyxYH6

  11. #11 by yhsiew on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 8:44 am

    Why high-profile figures can be above the law in Bolehland? Who gave them the “privilege”?

  12. #12 by Godfather on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 11:29 am

    A BN politician is expected to have the privilege of dipping into national coffers, and to have some form of immunity from prosecution. If they don’t have these, why would anyone want to put up their hands and declare themselves to be winnable candidates for BN ?

  13. #13 by dagen wanna "ABU" on Monday, 27 February 2012 - 12:53 pm

    “The feed(sharizat)lot has nothing to do with me”, declared sharizat. Just as well then. Now charge the company’s directors for CBT and throw them into prison. Hows dat cowgirl?

You must be logged in to post a comment.