KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 10): Former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak has taken to social media to insist that he does not have the US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) which 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) is seeking to recover from him.
"I don’t know why 1MDB thinks I have RM2.6 billion to repay as compensation. I don’t even have money to pay the RM1.7 billion claimed by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB). They think I can pay RM2.6 billion?"
"I don't have assets worth US$681 million," he said in a Facebook post on Thursday (Feb 10) in response to a civil lawsuit filed by 1MDB and its four subsidiaries against him to demand payment of US$681 million they claim as losses incurred.
On Tuesday, 1MDB and the subsidiaries obtained a Mareva injunction from the High Court against the former premier, freezing his assets in relation to their claim of US$681 million.
A Mareva injunction is a court order that effectively freezes the assets of the person facing legal action. It is to prevent the transfer of assets that may include money held in financial institutions
The injunction against Najib allows him to withdraw only up to RM100,000 monthly from his bank accounts.
In his response, Najib said the suit against him was filed to “create the perception” that he had assets worth US$681 million, adding that the government is very well aware of the actual amount in his bank accounts.
Noting that the injunction secured against him coincides with the upcoming Johor state election, Najib claimed that it was the work of Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Court documents sighted by The Edge indicate that Najib's conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case — where he was sentenced to 12 years' jail and fined RM210 million — was one of the reasons that prompted 1MDB to apply for the Mareva injunction. 1MDB was the parent company of SRC.
Najib's conviction in the SRC case had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, but he has appealed to the Federal Court. His explanation that the funds in his bank accounts were donations from Saudi royalty was dismissed by both the High Court and the appeals court