Apandi should explain why the Attorney-General’s Chambers sought to rebut only 17 of the references to “MALAYSIA OFFICIAL 1” in the US DOJ suits to forfeit over US$1 billion 1MDB-linked assets in United States and not to all 36 references?


Yesterday, I asked the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali to explain why the 17-point Q&A on the Malaysian Attorney-General’s Chambers website on the US Department of Justice (DOJ) legal suits for forfeiture of over US$1 billion assets in the United States which had been stolen, embezzled or defrauded from 1MDB and the people of Malaysia had been taken down after it was uploaded on Monday.

A detailed search has found that the 17-point Q&A, though not displayed on its main AGC portal page, is still available on the AGC website at:

http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/Press/MalaysianOfficial1(Q%26A).pdf

Although the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is not named in the DOJ suits, a person referred to “MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1” is mentioned 36 times – a person who is identified as the Prime Minister.

The AGC’s 17-point Q&A as good as acknowledged that “MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1” is Najib, and what Apandi should explain is why the Attorney-General’s Chambers sought to rebut only 17 of the references to “MALAYSIA OFFICIAL 1” in the US DOJ suits and not to all the 36 references.

What is most noteworthy of the AGC’s Q&A on the DOJ suit is Q&A No. 17, which reads:

“Soalan 17: Bagaimana pula dengan deposit yang dibuat ke dalam akaun Malaysia Official 1 sebagaimana disebutkan dalam laporan FBI?” and the answer:

“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 Offi¬cial 1 menerima wang daripada akaun 1MDB untuk dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadinya. DOJ mendakwa Malaysia Offi¬cial 1 mengekalkan jumlah RM210 juta daripada tiga pindahan yang boleh dikaitkan dengan 1MDB.”

This was followed by rebuttals of the allegations in the DOJ suits on “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.

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 Offi¬cial 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.

Without going into the merit or demerits of these rebuttals, which contradict the allegations in the DOJ suits, Apandi should explain why the Attorney-General’s Chambers only dealt with 17 references of the DOJ suits on “MALAYSIA OFFICIAL 1” and not with all the 36 references in the DOJ suits.

Is the above clarification and rebuttal made with the knowledge and authority of Najib?

Furthermore, who is the “saya” in the third rebuttal on “Tiga pemindahan wang itu ialah” – whether the “saya” is the Attorney-General Apandi himself?

Najib said after the DOJ filed its action under the US Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (KARI) 2010 on 20th July that the government takes the DOJ’s allegations seriously, and that “whoever is named should take responsibility and clear their names, and ensure that the people’s money are not abused”.

Can Malaysians expect a full statement from Najib, or the AGC on his behalf, referring to everyone of the 36 references to “MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1” in the 136-page 513-paragraph DOJ legal suits?

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by yhsiew on Thursday, 28 July 2016 - 8:20 pm

    Why rebut only 17……?

    Truth hurts !!!

  2. #2 by boh-liao on Thursday, 28 July 2016 - 8:36 pm

    Our AGs hv been getting from bad 2 worse
    Dis 1 man’s AG is d worst, supposed 2 b d best of UmnoB kaki

  3. #3 by yhsiew on Thursday, 28 July 2016 - 8:40 pm

    Defend the indefensible only makes yourself a laughing stock to the world.

  4. #4 by Justice Ipsofacto on Friday, 29 July 2016 - 4:07 pm

    The truth is so very bad and ugly that it is no longer concealable by any means whatsoever.

    The sooner apandi realises this the better it would be for the country.

    Any further attempts to deny and evade the truth will only sink malaysia further when the countries that are affected by the scandal take further steps in prosecuting those responsible for then more revealing details would be emerge.

  5. #5 by good coolie on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 - 8:11 am

    Back to the old favorite: “Tuan, saya bukan jenis orang yang suka menutup bangkai gajah dengan daun nipah.”

    You can’t hide durians or buah bacang either. Our Malaysian kids would sniff it out too easily!

You must be logged in to post a comment.