Nazri tying himself up in contradictions when he said it was HK’s ICAC and not MACC which cleared Musa Aman of corruption in the RM40 million “smuggled” cash from Hong Kong


The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has tied himself up in contradictions when he said in Parliament yesterday that it was Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and not the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) which cleared the Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman of corruption in the case of RM40 million “smuggled” cash from Hong Kong in August 2008.

In answer to supplementary question by the DAP MP for Cheras, Tan Kok Wai, Nazri said in Parliament yesterday:

“Yang Berhormat bercakap tentang wang yang dibawa masuk daripada Hong Kong. Saya hendak sebut di sini itu bahawa siasatan yang dijalankan bukan daripada SPRM. Siasatan dijalankan oleh ICAC iaitu Hong Kong yang terkenal dengan penyiasatan without fear or favor. ICAC telah pun menyatakan itu bahawa tidak ada kes rasuah di sini. Soal sumbangan kepada mana-mana pertubuhan pun tidak ada kesalahan. Kalau macam mana-mana parti pun hendak menerima wang tidak ada kesalahan, boleh terima orang hendak sumbang bagilah, apa salahnya.”

However, Nazri gave a very different story in his written answer on the same subject to the PKR MP for Batu, Chua Tian Chan last week, viz:

1. Untuk makluman Dewan yang mulia ini, Jabatan Peguam Negara telah meneliti dan mempertimbangkan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh SPRM dan memutuskan bahawa elemen perbuatan rasuah tidak dibuktikan. Dana tersebut ialah sumbangan yang dibuat kepada Badan Perhubungan UMNO Sabah dan bukannya untuk tujuan persendirian Ketua Menteri.

2. Pada masa yang sama kes tersebut telah turut disiasat oleh Independent Commission Against Corruption Hong Kong (ICAC). Berdasarkan siasatan ICAC berkaitan kes ini dan keputusan siasatan SPRM yang tersebut diatas, ICAC juga tidak mengambil apa-apa tindakan lanjut.

3. Mengenai kes yang turut difailkan di Mahkamah Switzerland, ia merupakan permohonan Bantuan Bersama dalam Perkara Jenayah (MACMA) oleh ICAC bagi tujuan menyiasat perkara yang sama. Permohonan MACMA ini juga telah ditarik balik atas alasan yang sama yang dinyatakan diatas.

From Nazri’s written answer last week, one can conclude the following with regard to the case of the RM40 million cash in Singapore currency in his luggage which Sabah businessman Michael Chia had tried to smuggle out of Hong Kong International Airport on August 14, 2008:

1. That it was the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail who, based on investigation papers submitted to him, decided that “no element of corruption was proven” and not Hong Kong’s ICAC.

2. Although the ICAC also carried out its own investigations, it was based on the decision of the Malaysian Attorney-General that MACC investigations showed “no element of corruption” that the ICAC did not carry out any further action – which is very different from what Nazri said yesterday, that it was the ICAC which cleared Musa of corruption and the MACC followed suit!

3. That it was based on the Attorney-General’s decision of “no element of corruption was proven” that ICAC withdrew its request to the Swiss authorities requesting co-operation in a “criminal matter” which had been lodged over a Swiss bank account.

Many questions cry out for answer on the RM40 million “smuggled” cash from Hong Kong to Malaysia, ending up as “donation to Sabah UMNO”, which Nazri should clear in Parliament on Monday during the committee stage of the 2013 budget debate on the Prime Minister’s Department, including:

Firstly, when did the MACC submit its investigation papers on the RM40 million “smuggled” cash to the Attorney-General? When did the Attorney-General decide that “no element of corruption was proven” and to close the file? Was the MACC in full agreement with the Attorney-General that there was “no element of corruption” in the case, and if so, when did the MACC on its own arrive at such a conclusion?

Furthermore, how can the instruction of the MACC Operations Evaluation Panel at its meeting in May to the MACC to collect further evidence against the Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman before proceeding to prosecution square with the Attorney-General’s finding of “no element of corruption proven” against Musa Aman in the RM40 million “smuggled” cash from Hong Kong?

The instruction of the MACC Evaluation Panel to the MACC at its May meeting in connection with MACC investigations into corruption allegations against Musa Aman was only publicly revealed early this month by the MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Mohd Shukri Abdul, as reported by Malaysiakini in “Anti-graft panel wants more evidence against Sabah CM”.

Can one infer that until early this month, MACC was not aware that the Attorney-General had decided that “no element of corruption was proven” against Musa Aman?

Secondly, when was Hong Kong’s ICAC informed of the Attorney-General’s decision of “no element of corruption” in Michael Chia’s RM40 million “smuggled” cash case and when did ICAC withdraw its application to the Swiss authorities requesting co-operation in serious money-laundering allegations against UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, following reported disclosure of a series of documents linking Aman Musa to secret UBS bank accounts in Hong Kong and Zurich?

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by Bigjoe on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 3:16 pm

    Firstly, ICAC does not investigate corruption outside of HK so there is no way they can rule out the money is not corruption in a foreign country.

    What ICAC was investigating was money laundering and in HK money laundering definition is mostly about drug trafficking, terrorism or indicted acts in foreign jurisdiction HK govt has agreement to pursue for.

    In other words, MACC has to find MUSA guilty first before ICAC will prosecute, not the other way around..Or in other words, ICAC just did not act, they did not say MUSA was not guilty..

  2. #2 by monsterball on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 4:13 pm

    This is a classic example that liars cannot remember what they said….when so much lies are told.

  3. #3 by sheriff singh on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 4:22 pm

    From where in Hong Kong or Singapore did Michael Chia obtain the S$ 16 million? Where did the money originate from? JI? Al Qaeda? Drug money? Was it ‘clean’ money?

    It is looking like this whole incident is being given a big spin. Nazri’s contradictory statements and comments are beginning to look like some fairy tale or a big cover up.

    Someone gave me this version:

    The S$16 million is really corruption money by the timber tycoons and others to Musa Aman. Michael Chia is really the money mule and go-between in the money laundering process but he got caught in Hong Kong.

    BN is in a fix because one of its Chief Ministers has been implicated and will now cause considerable embarrassment for the party and for many prominent personalities. Legal implications will flow. A cover up has to been made by UMNO using government officials, machinery, institutions to clear and protect the guilty parties and minimise the damage and fall out.

    So a story is cooked up.

    Musa Aman ‘forgoes’ this S$16 million corruption money which is now claimed to be ‘donations’ by unnamed parties to UMNO Sabah which is now the beneficiary and is now richer by S$ 16 million which no doubt it can use very well. As ‘donations’, it is hoped that all ‘illegal money’ implications will be removed and the transaction is now seen as ‘legal’. UMNO, BN and the ‘donors’ are hopefully left off the hook and this embarrassing episode quickly closed in due course by ICAC, the Swiss authorities, MACC and our wonderful AG and everyone can close their files as ‘NFA’.

    For this cover-up by central UMNO and the Feds, Musa Aman will be required to leave the scene in due course. That will be his ‘reward’ for being let off the hook. UMNO Sabah will be richer by S$16 million. Everyone can now live happily ever after, they hope, as the government is intentionally blocking off and ending all further investigations locally and internationally.

    Does this version make sense?

  4. #4 by sheriff singh on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 4:41 pm

    Has the MACC Operations Evaluation Panel have anything to say now?

    They appear to have been overruled and disregarded by the Minister and if so, can they play a meaningful and responsible role anymore?

  5. #5 by dagen wanna "ABU" on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 4:49 pm

    So to save his skin musa had to forgo the S$16m and give it to umno as party contribution “by someone unknown” and if known, “by someone whose identity is undisclosable”.

    Whether “unknown” or “undisclosable” I could still see musa’s face behind those words. Yup, its one and the same person.

    JJ1B
    RR1C!

  6. #6 by yhsiew on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 5:17 pm

    It was said that the AG did not pass information to the ICAC. As a result, the ICAC was forced to stop investigating the case.

  7. #7 by tuahpekkong on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 7:56 pm

    Nazri’s explanation is hardly convincing. If the Sin$16 million was a political donation for UMNO Sabah, why couldn’t the cash be withdrawn and payment made in KL since it is legal to make political donation? The fact that cash was used and withdrawal make in a foreign country may mean that some dubious business was happening.

  8. #8 by Bigjoe on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 8:14 pm

    Tanya Najib, mengapa tidak debat Anwar,
    Jawab Najib, nanti Putrajaya di bawanya..

  9. #9 by Loh on Friday, 19 October 2012 - 9:36 pm

    If ICAC of Hong Kong did carry out investigation, why should it accept the conclusion drawn by MACC?

  10. #10 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 20 October 2012 - 8:01 am

    First he says ICAC cleared Musa, then he says not sure, then he confirm it was MACC and AG who did it..

    So why is NAJIB SO ARROGANT TO DISMISS WHEN NAZRI DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE IS DOING??????

You must be logged in to post a comment.