KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 26): The Malaysian Institute of Accountant’s (MIA) Disciplinary Appeal Board (DAB)'s decision to penalise Deloitte PLT partner Ng Yee Hong for signing off the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) audit report for 2014 should be quashed as it is disproportionate and in defiance of logic, the High Court heard on Tuesday.
Submitting during the online hearing of Ng’s judicial review application, his lawyers also claimed that the charge imposed on him is vague and defective, and that the disciplinary committee (DC) that heard the case should not have amended the charge as it did not have the power to do so.
Hence the decision to institute the punishment constitute an illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, the lawyers submitted.
They further claimed that the complainant, Andrew Anand Solomon Devasahayam, who had lodged the complaint on March 31, 2015, had admitted that he did not have personal knowledge of the matter.
The lawyers also claimed that Solomon had contradicted himself in his testimony as the issues pertaining to 1MDB were fairly complex.
“The complainant had taken issue with the purported failure to obtain sufficient audit evidence on the US$2.32 billion that was invested in a financial institution (Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund),” the lawyers submitted, adding that he also failed to identify the financial institution involved and that Bridge Global itself is not a financial institution as earlier claimed,” the lawyers said in written submissions.
That formed the basis of the MIA’s charges against Ng, which are not reporting a suspected money-laundering activity under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activity 2001 (AMLATFPUA) to Bank Negara Malaysia and failing to obtain sufficient audit evidence that the “financial institution” (Bridge Global) had good credit rating.
Central to the issue were questions of 1MDB's investment to Bridge Global through Brazen Sky Ltd.
Ng’s lawyers claimed that the investigating committee and the DC had relied on additional articles before arriving at their decision to punish Ng before he could respond to them.
They further alleged that the DC in arriving at its decision had amended or reframed the charge in finding the 45-year-old auditor guilty, whereas it does not have the power or authority to do so.
The DAB upheld the DC’s decision last year, and it found the two-year suspension and fine imposed were “proper and reasonable” and imposed additional costs on the auditor.
As a result, Ng filed the judicial review application, naming the DAB and the MIA as respondents.
Ng was represented by counsel Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, along with Low Weng Tchung, Khoo Suk Chyi, Ng Seng Yi and Wong Ming Yen,
‘Appeal board’s decision is rational’
Meanwhile, the DAB’s counsel Mohanandas Kanagasabai argued that the board's decision is right, proportional, rational, lawfully made, and procedurally sound.
Mohanandas, who appeared with Syarihah Razman and Jennifer Hui Jing Yin, further said the High Court should not interfere in the board’s decision as it is based on applicable laws and procedures.
“In finding Ng culpable on the charges against him, the DAB's decision was made in compliance with the Accountants Act 1967 and the MIA (Disciplinary Rules) 2002 which gave rise to the DAB.
“Ng was also accorded the right to be heard at all stages. While Ng alleges that the refusal of the DAB to allow him an oral hearing is considered biased, Rule 27 of the Disciplinary Rules only provides that the DAB shall give the applicant (Ng) an opportunity to make written representations. There is no requirement to give him an oral hearing,” Mohanandas said.
The DAB, he said, found the investigation committee had carried its probe in accordance with the Accountants Act and the Disciplinary Rules and principles of natural justice.
The DAB’s lawyers also considered that Ng had been given access to all documents referred to and produced by the investigation committee and the committee also allowed him the right to be heard in an interview conducted in 2017.
“For these reasons, we apply that Ng's judicial review will be dismissed,” Mohanandas added.
Porres Royan and Shaarvin Raaj, appearing for the MIA, denied that the charges levelled against Ng were vague.
They also denied that Ng was not given any opportunity to state his case.
Both lawyers also refuted claims of bias in the investigation committee probe against Ng.
“We say the judicial review is devoid of merit and should be dismissed with costs,” Porres added.
Justice Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, who heard the submissions, fixed Dec 9 to deliver the court's decision.
This judicial review was filed by Ng over the first probe on him. On Monday, Ng managed to obtain a stay of a second probe following a similar complaint filed by Damansara MP Tony Pua.