Thursday 28 Mar 2024
By
main news image

SINGAPORE (Nov 10): Earlier in the day, Singapore’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) confirmed that it has been investigating 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) mastermind Low Taek Jho, popularly known as Jho Low, along with several of his associates, for over a year.

CAD investigation officer Oh Yong Yang said in court on Thursday morning that other “key persons of interest” included ex-BSI banker Yeo Jiawei; Aabar Investments PJS Limited director Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny; and Low’s close associate Eric Tan Kim Loong.

Oh is testifying in court as the last of nine prosecution witnesses in the on-going trial of former BSI wealth planner Yeo, 33, who faces four charges of tampering with witnesses.  

Yeo was arrested on March 17 in connection with money laundering activities surrounding Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB.

Besides those four names, Oh also said at least twice while testifying that the probe also includes “other individuals” without specifying who — as well as related entities across various jurisdictions.

These entities include four with identical or almost identical names as Aabar Investments PJS, a subsidiary of an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC).

According to Oh, these were Aabar International Investments PJS Limited incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and three different entities named Aabar Investments PJS Limited, which were incorporated in BVI, Samoa, and Seychelles. Husseiny was the CEO of the Abu Dhabi-owned Aabar, but also separately listed as a director of the four other “Aabars”.

In his cross examination, Yeo’s lawyer Philip Fong asked Oh if his earlier testimony that CAD’s investigations into entities such as the various Aabars were related to the “1MDB saga”, and the direct relevance to his client Yeo’s charges of tampering with witnesses.

Fong noted that the prosecution, when making its case earlier in the trial, quoted a statement from IPIC in April 11 this year disassociating itself from the other Aabars and “saying as if that is a fact”. That statement was rebutted by 1MDB, pointing out that money had been paid to Aabar BVI in 2014 and asking why would IPIC wait until April 2016 to raise this up.

Fong referred to the July 21 statement by Malaysia’s Attorney General Chambers that “there has been no evidence from any investigation conducted by any law enforcement agencies in various jurisdictions which shows that money has been misappropriated from 1MDB”.

“There have been no criminal charges preferred against any individuals for the offence of misappropriation of funds from 1MDB,” Malaysia’s AGC had added.

That was in response to a coordinated released of statements by US and Singapore authorities saying investigations into 1MDB fund flows through Singapore were on-going on July 20 and July 21, and that Aabar BVI was named as an entity that received proceeds from funds diverted from two bond issues guaranteed by 1MDB and IPIC.

Deputy public prosecutor Nathaniel Khng stood up and “strongly” objected to Fong’s line of questioning. Referring to IPIC’s April 11 statement, he said that “IPIC is the owner of the entity that is the subject of investigations, Aabar, and they are in the position to state categorically whether or not they own or do not own a certain entity.”

Khng said that Malaysian Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali’s statement is of no relevance to investigations in other jurisdictions. “He cannot on behalf of other jurisdictions give a conclusive statement as to what is going on, unlike IPIC, your Honour, which is the direct owner of Aabar,” said Khng.

Fong then noted that as there is no conclusive word yet on the exchange of words between IPIC and 1MDB, and thus, the IPIC statement is “hearsay” and shouldn’t apply to this court.

He added that since there had been transactions involving 1MDB and various entities named Aabar, 1MDB is in a position to disagree with IPIC’s statement that it does not own certain Aabars. “In fact the statement dated April 11, 2016 is itself very categorically expressing surprise, shock that IPIC is making such a statement,” said Fong.

“1MDB does not own Aabar. It is IPIC which owns Aabar. Only IPIC or Aabar Abu Dhabi is in a firm position to give an answer as to who owns the Aabar entities,” said Khng.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share