This article first appeared in The Edge Malaysia Weekly on December 27, 2021 - January 2, 2022
Acquittals (and a reversal) that hogged the limelight
There were several acquittals this year, following decisions by the authorities — the Attorney-General’s Chambers and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission — not to proceed with the cases.
In some instances, ‘new information’ was cited as the reason; in others, it was because the defendant agreed to settle compound fines; and in yet others, no explanations were offered.
Riza Aziz and his companies face civil suits
By Hafiz Yatim
Hollywood producer Riza Shahriz Aziz was last year given a controversial discharge not amounting to an acquittal on charges of money laundering involving US$248 million. But the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is not completely off the hook as he is being sued in the civil court.
1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) and three of its subsidiaries are suing him and his companies — Red Granite Pictures Inc and Red Granite Capital Ltd, the producers of the award-winning The Wolf of Wall Street — to recover US$248 million of misappropriated 1MDB funds.
In the suit, 1MDB claims that Riza was aware that the US$248 million that was channelled to the defendants’ accounts was misappropriated from 1MDB through businessman Low Taek Jho, who has been in hiding since 2018, and that Riza was wilfully blind and reckless not to inquire about the source of the funds.
Riza and the other defendants claim in their defence that he had borrowed the funds from the Saudi royal family and Dubai-based International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to make the movie. They reiterate that the monies were not from 1MDB.
Riza asserts that the Saudi royals gave him US$10.173 million through Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, and that he had repaid Alsen Chance the full amount plus interest on Oct 31.
The suit against Riza is one of six filed by 1MDB in May against various 1MDB officials and closely connected power brokers. Its former subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd filed 16 lawsuits at the same time, also in connection with misappropriated 1MDB-related funds.
On a separate matter, Riza, his mother, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and stepsiblings Nor Ashman Najib and Nooryana Najwa managed to set aside a forfeiture claim by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission against them in relation to various assets.
The Edge is given to understand that the forfeiture suit is related to the Rolex watches that were retrieved from Najib and Rosmah’s Jalan Duta house. Further, even though the prosecution had failed to retrieve almost RM15 million of the RM31 million sought from the forfeiture, an appeal to the Court of Appeal has been filed.
Umno lawyer acquitted of 1MDB-linked money laundering charges
By Izzul Ikram
Umno-linked lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun was acquitted in July of money laundering charges involving RM15 million after he agreed to comply with a compound offer.
On July 30, Sessions Court Judge Suzana Hussin acquitted and discharged Mohd Hafarizam after she was informed by the prosecution that it was withdrawing the charges against him as he had paid the RM590,587.26 compound.
The offer of a compound, framed under Section 92(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) was forwarded to him on July 28, and he paid it a day later.
Mohd Hafarizam, who often appeared for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his civil cases, had faced three money laundering charges involving the receipt of RM15 million in illicit funds from Najib between April 2014 and February 2015.
The funds were deposited via three cheques into the client account of his former law firm Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak and were connected to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) and its former subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd.
The first charge involved RM7.5 million and was framed under Section 4(1)(a) of the AMLATFPUAA. The second and third charges, which involved deposits of RM4 million and RM3.5 million respectively, were made under the amended Section 4(1)(b) of the same Act.
The offer of a compound was made after Najib’s former media adviser Paul Stadlen, who had allegedly channelled the funds from Hafarizam’s law firm to various people and companies, accepted a similar offer for money laundering charges against him to be dropped. Stadlen agreed to pay more than RM7 million to a 1MDB trust account.
Overturned — former Johor exco’s acquittal on money laundering charges
By Hafiz Yatim
Two years ago, former Johor executive council member Datuk Abd Latif Bandi, his son and a former real estate consultant were unexpectedly acquitted of 37 graft and money-laundering charges involving RM35.7 million.
Last month, the Johor Bahru High Court overturned the acquittal, pronouncing the Sessions Court to have erred and the prosecution to have proved a prima facie case against the trio. The men were ordered to enter their defence.
High Court judge Datuk Abu Bakar Katar said the Sessions Court did not consider the influence that real estate agent Amir Shariffuddin Abd Raub wielded on the housing developers in the release of bumiputera-quota houses and a reduction in their contrib ution to Tabung Perumahan Negeri Johor by alluding to his relationship with Abd Latif, who was the state exco for housing and local government at that time.
“Amir Shariffuddin had acted on this by convincing housing developers of his close relationship with Abd Latif. The court is of the view that Amir Shariffuddin’s actions had tarnished the image of the public sector, where he used the opportunity for his financial benefit and that of Abdul Latif’s.
“Amir Shariffuddin is cunning to involve three others, who are now prosecution witnesses, to achieve his aim of obtaining gratification. After approval is obtained [for the applications], the developer would pay the bribe, which is determined by him (Amir Shariffuddin) through the law firm Messrs Zul Azam & Co,” Justice Abu Bakar said.
On June 14, 2017, Abd Latif, his son, Ahmad Fauzan Hatim, and Amir Shariffuddin were charged with 33 counts of corruption and four counts of money laundering involving a total of RM35.7 million. They were freed by Sessions Court judge Kamarudin Kamsun on April 21, 2019.
Following the recent High Court decision, all three are expected to testify in their defence on Jan 26 next year.
MACC probe clears Felda ex-director of bribery charges
By Izzul Ikram
Former Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) director Datuk Noor Ehsanuddin Mohd Harun Narrashid was acquitted and discharged of 29 bribery charges in September after further investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
The Sessions Court ruled thus following the prosecution’s withdrawal of all charges against the 58-year-old, prompted by the MACC’s further findings that all transactions stated in the charges were advances that had been fully repaid.
The further probe followed Noor Ehsanuddin’s statement of defence submitted under Section 62 of the MACC Act 2009.
“Based on the new findings through new evidence submitted, the accused (Noor Ehsanuddin) managed to prove that he had repaid the money alleged to be bribes before the [initial] investigation started, and the key witness also confirmed the money was a loan,” the MACC said in a statement after Noor Ehsanuddin’s acquittal.
The charges had been filed in three sessions courts: 14 in a Kuala Lumpur court, 10 in Johor Baru and 5 in Shah Alam. All charges were heard in the Kuala Lumpur court.
The charges filed in Kuala Lumpur concerned the acceptance of a bribe of RM23,540.68 in instalment payments for a BMW 3 Series model from printing company Karya Hidayah Sdn Bhd in 2014 and 2015. In Johor Baru, the charges included a bribe of RM50,000 and a piece of land from the same company in 2013 and 2014. In Shah Alam, all charges were related to the acceptance of the maintenance of two vehicles and a legal fee payment of RM12,707.60 for the purchase of a piece of land.
Acquittal of Ku Nan and prosecution’s withdrawal of appeal raise questions
By Hafiz Yatim
On July 16, the Court of Appeal (COA) acquitted former minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor of receiving a bribe of RM2 million from Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd director Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong. In a majority 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the money was a political donation for the two by-elections of Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar in 2016, when Tengku Adnan was the Federal Territories minister.
The prosecution filed a notice of appeal three days later, which was, however, withdrawn last month by the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Chambers.
AG Tan Sri Idrus Harun has kept mum over his decision despite calls from opposition politicians and Malaysian Bar president AG Kalidas for an explanation.
COA judges Datuk Suraya Othman and Datuk Ahmad Nasfy Yasin were the two who decided to acquit Ku Nan while Datuk Abu Bakar Jais dissented.
Earlier in December 2020, High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan found the 71-year-old politician guilty and sentenced him to 12 months’ jail and a fine of RM2 million.
With the withdrawal of the appeal by the AG’s Chambers, however, Tengku Adnan remains a free man.
This is the second graft charge that the long-time top Umno leader, currently its treasurer general, has dodged.
In July 2020, he was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal of bribery after then director Paragon City Development Sdn Bhd, Datuk Tan Eng Boon, pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of abetting him in receiving a bribe.
Tan had deposited RM1 million into a CIMB Bank Bhd account controlled by Tengku Adnan.
The payment, made in December 2013, was to allow Paragon to increase the plot ratio of Lot 228 on Jalan Semarak, which it was developing.
While Tan was fined RM1.5 million, the prosecution dropped its case against Ku Nan, citing recent developments.
Sreesanthan settles with SC over some charges but legal woes not over yet
By Timothy Achariam
Charged with four counts of insider trading in three separate companies, lawyer Datuk Sreesanthan Eliathamby had agreed to pay RM900,000 in disgorgement of profits as part of a regulatory settlement agreement with the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) in October.
In 2012, the senior lawyer was charged with insider trading of the shares of Maxis Communications Bhd, UEM World Bhd and VADS Bhd. The share dealings were said to have taken place in 2006.
Having reached a settlement with the lawyer, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and SC also dropped a separate appeal in the High Court before Judicial Commissioner Datuk Aslam Zainuddin against Sreesanthan’s acquittal by the Sessions Court in January 2021 on a further three charges of insider trading of Sime Darby Bhd shares.
“Following this settlement, the SC, with the consent of the public prosecutor, withdrew related criminal proceedings against Sreesanthan, and its appeal against his acquittal in another case for insider trading of Sime Darby Bhd shares,” the SC said in a statement.
This does not spell the end of Sreesanthan’s legal troubles, however, as the SC further clarified that the settlement did not affect the ongoing civil proceeding against him in relation to his acquisition of 600,000 Worldwide Holdings Bhd shares between June and July 2006, while in possession of material non-public information.
In the Worldwide Holdings proceeding, Sreesanthan was found liable by the High Court in November 2020 and ordered to pay the SC RM1.99 million in disgorgement, and a civil penalty of RM1 million. He was also barred from holding directorships of public-listed companies for 10 years.
Sreesanthan has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision.
Although the SC had charged him in 2012, it explained that the trial commenced only in 2019, as he had challenged the constitutionality of the regulator’s investigative powers in September 2012. The lawyer had also filed an application to strike out the criminal charges against him and sought for the disclosure of witnesses’ statements and documents.
Ahmad Maslan acquitted of money laundering upon compound payment
By Izzul Ikram
Former deputy finance minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan was cleared of a RM2 million money laundering charge and a false statement charge after he paid a compound of RM1.1 million.
On Sept 29, High Court judge Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh granted the acquittal on the grounds that the Umno secretary-general and Pontian member of parliament (MP) had accepted the offer of a compound and duly paid it.
The judge added that the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) applied to not continue prosecuting Ahmad and confirmed he would not be made to face the same charges.
Ahmad’s lawyers from Messrs Shahrul Hamidi and Haziq said the acquittal was not an admission of guilt but a settlement through the payment of the compound in a bid to resolve the matter.
Prior to paying the compound, Ahmad and his lawyers had sought clarification from the Election Commission (EC) over his status as an MP and his qualification to contest as stipulated under Article 48A (1) (e) of the Federal Constitution should the compound be paid.
The EC had responded that the payment of the compound would not result in Ahmad’s disqualification as a lawmaker, which prompted him to proceed with the payment as a “good settlement”.
Ahmad was charged on Jan 20 last year in the Sessions Court under Section 4(1) and Section 32(8) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).
He had been accused of receiving a sum of RM2 million, monies allegedly from 1Malaysia Development Bhd, from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as well as giving a false statement to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
Najib fails in SRC appeal but has final shot at apex court
By Timothy Achariam
After an almost seven-month wait, the Court of Appeal (COA) finally delivered its verdict, which was a denial of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s appeal to set aside his conviction in the case of SRC International Sdn Bhd, the former subsidiary of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
Having heard a lengthy appeal in April and May this year, the three-Judge bench of Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, Datuk Has Zanah Mehat and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera upheld the High Court’s verdict on all seven charges against Najib.
On July 28, 2020, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years’ jail and fined him RM210 million after he was found guilty by Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali of seven charges, which included one charge of abuse of power involving Retirement Fund (Inc)’s (KWAP) RM4 billion loans to SRC, three counts of criminal breach of trust involving RM42 million and three counts of money laundering.
In a unanimous judgment upholding Najib’s conviction, the appellate court surmised that Mohd Nazlan was not wrong in his findings or in his sentencing. “We find that there was proper consideration by the learned trial judge (Justice Nazlan) of all factors that were relevant to be taken into consideration in sentencing. We do not find the sentence to be grossly excessive. The terms of imprisonment and fine imposed are wholly adequate and commensurate with the nature of the offences.
“He (Najib) has not merely breached the trust reposted on him but betrayed it,” the COA wrote in a 308-page grounds of judgement.
Even though his sentence was upheld, Najib was granted a stay of execution of the sentence pending his final appeal at the Federal Court.
This means Najib will not have to serve his sentence or pay the fine until his final appeal is disposed of in the apex court, which is scheduled for 2022.
Public furore over double standards as Najib, Rosmah allowed to leave country
By Timothy Achariam
Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, caused a public uproar this year when they were granted permission by the courts to travel to Singapore to witness the birth of their grandchild.
Three separate High Courts — where the former prime minister is facing charges related to 1Malaysia Development Bhd, criminal breach of trust and abuse of position — allowed for the temporary return of his passport, while a High Court allowed Rosmah’s passport to be handed to her with the provision that it must be returned to the court by or before Dec 6.
Rosmah, too, has an ongoing trial, where she faces three graft charges in relation to a RM1.25 billion solar hybrid school project.
Both husband and wife gave various reasons to be with their daughter, Nooryana Najwa, who was expecting her second child in Singapore.
It should be noted that the prosecution in all cases had not objected to the release of the passports.
Public outrage was especially strong against the concession to Najib, as he has been sentenced to 12 years’ jail and fined RM210 million after High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali found him guilty of seven criminal charges relating to SRC International Sdn Bhd.
Najib was convicted of one charge of abuse of power involving Retirement Fund (Inc)’s (KWAP) loans to SRC worth RM4 billion, three counts of criminal breach of trust involving RM42 million and three counts of money laundering.
Rosmah avoids arrest over court no-show
On Dec 2, Rosmah avoided arrest after failing to turn up at the Court of Appeal (COA) for her appeal to recuse Datuk Sri Gopal Sri Ram from leading the prosecution in her corruption trial linked to the solar hybrid case.
According to a High Court order issued on Oct 15, Rosmah was to return on or before Nov 21 and surrender her passport before Dec 6, as her trial would resume on Dec 8.
Rosmah was still in Singapore, however, during the COA hearing to recuse Sri Ram. The day before the hearing, Rosmah’s counsels, Datuk Jagjit Singh and Datuk Akberdin Abdul Kader, had informed the COA of her absence, via a letter.
Jagjit explained that Rosmah’s absence was an oversight, as there was a change in her travel plans, owing to a change in the quarantine duration she would have to undergo in travelling between Malaysia and Singapore.
Nonetheless, Sri Ram, who led the prosecution, requested the issue of a warrant of arrest against Rosmah and revocation of her bail.
“The natural order which has to be made is that a warrant for her arrest must be issued and her bail must be cancelled. We are not talking about children; we are talking about equal adults who know what their duties, liabilities and responsibilities are,” he stressed.
“A warrant of arrest should be issued because she has disobeyed the order. I do not see why it should make a difference that the name on the charge was Rosmah binti Mansor.”
Jagjit told the appellate bench that Rosmah had never missed attending her graft trial proceedings in the High Court, and stressed that her absence in the appeal proceedings was an oversight.
Sri Ram countered that the law must be followed to maintain the public’s confidence in the court.
In a unanimous ruling, however, the three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk M Gunalan and Datuk Hashim Hamzah, and Justice Datuk Hanipah Farikullah as the chair, adjourned the appeal till Dec 6 and practised its discretion in withholding the issue of a warrant of arrest against Rosmah.
Subsequently, Rosmah turned up on Dec 6, and the COA dismissed her appeal to recuse Sri Ram.
RM114 mil seized in Pavilion raid returned to Najib and Umno
By Timothy Achariam
A whopping RM114 million was returned this year to Umno and former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak after the High Court dismissed the government’s suit to forfeit the amount allegedly misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
Justice Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin said lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) representing the government had failed to prove that the funds — seized in the infamous 2018 raid of a Pavilion luxury condominium unit owned by OBYU Holdings Sdn Bhd — were obtained from illegal activities. The prosecution had failed to adduce any evidence that the cash originated from 1MDB, the judge added.
Following the verdict, the prosecution said it would appeal against the High Court’s decision in May. A month later, however, it decided not to proceed with the appeal — a decision apparently made by Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun because, The Edge is given to understand, the matter was referred to him.
Najib — a former Umno president — and Umno had at all times claimed that the money belonged to them.
On June 17, the RM114 million cash was returned to Najib and Umno via their representatives. The money was among assets seized by the authorities from a raid in 2018 as part of their investigation into the 1MDB scandal.
Apart from the cash, which was found in numerous currencies, other seized assets included 12,000 pieces of jewellery, 284 handbags, 423 watches and 234 sunglasses, amounting to between RM900 million and RM1.1 billion.
The government had named OBYU as the respondent in the forfeiture suit, while Umno and Najib claimed the seized assets, including money and jewellery, belonged to Umno and thus should be returned to the party.
It was previously reported that OBYU was a company owned by Works Minister Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof’s brother Tan Sri Bustari Yusof, a confidante of Najib.
The hearings with regard to the non-cash assets are fixed for May 23 to 27, 2022, with the court scheduled to hear submissions from the prosecution as well as the lawyers representing Najib and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and Lebanon-based jeweller Global Royalty Trading SAL. Najib, Rosmah and Global Royalty are contesting the asset forfeiture.
Global Royalty representatives have claimed ownership of 44 of the 12,000 pieces of jewellery seized, which they assert that Rosmah ordered but had yet to pay for. The items included a diamond necklace, earrings, rings, bracelets and a tiara, each worth between US$124,000 and US$925,000.
Jamil is also presiding over the asset forfeiture case.
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.