Archive for the 'Financial' Category

29
Apr
19

Complex web of money transfers involving Najib’s personal accounts

…source
Najib’s RM42m trial: Spider web of money transfers involving his personal accounts
29 April 2019 – Malay Mail

SRC Money Web

Advertisements
17
Apr
19

Najib SRC Trial Continues

SRC Trial

(Source: Malaysiakini/Bernama Infographics)

12
Apr
19

Felda White Paper: 8 questionable deals

The 8 dodgy deals that put Felda in dire straits

WHITE PAPER | The government today tabled a White Paper on the sustainability of Felda in the Dewan Rakyat which, among others, detailed several questionable deals that have pushed the organisation’s finances to a critical state as it struggles to pay settlers.

Starting out as an entity to help poverty-stricken bumiputera through plantation schemes, Felda, under the stewardship of former Umno vice president Mohd Isa Abdul Samad, went on a global splurging spree through its investment arm Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FIC).

Here are a list of those questionable deals and a summary of what went wrong, according to the White Paper. They are based on a forensic audit by the firm Ernst & Young.

1. Grand Plaza Kensington: FIC paid RM75m, got RM20,500 worth in return

Park City Grand Plaza Kensington is a hotel located in central London, which FIC claimed it purchased for 60 million pounds (RM321 million) in 2014.

In reality, the hotel was purchased for 46 million pounds (RM246 million) and the remaining 14 million pounds (RM75 million) was for the benefit of certain individuals through a structure designed to make it appear as though FIC paid 60 million pounds for the hotel.

For starters, no agreement existed between the seller of Park City Grand Plaza Kensington and FIC.

Instead, a Malaysian-owned British Virgin Islands (BVI) company, referred to as “Company I” in the White Paper, purchased the hotel for 46 million pounds on Sept 12, 2014.

Subsequently, this unnamed Malaysian then transferred the shares of Company I worth US$5,000 (RM20,500) to two FIC directors at the time for 14 million pounds on Oct 13, 2014.

The ownership of the Park City Grand Plaza Kensington (purchased for 46 million pounds) and Company I shares worth US$5,000 (purchased for 14 million pounds) was only transferred to FIC in 2015, after its name was changed to FIC London Hotel (Private Limited).

This was despite FIC claiming in its financial statement that those assets were already in its possession since 2014.

“FIC suffered 14 million pounds losses from buying Company I shares which were in the name of two former (then) FIC directors without the FIC board’s approval for 14 million pounds, even though it was only worth US$5,000.

“Following the questionable purchase, FIC has lodged a report with the MACC for further investigation,” it said.

Furthermore, a 2015 valuation found that the value of the Park City Grand Plaza Kensington had slid to 26 million pounds (RM139 million).

The purchase was never tabled for approval by the main Felda board. It was only informed by FIC three months later.

2. Grand Plaza Service Apartments – RM76.5m goes missing

FIC, through FIC UK Properties Sdn Bhd (FUPSB), purchased the four-star Grand Plaza Serviced Apartments from one “Company D” and its sister operator “Company E” for 98 million pounds (RM524 million) on July 31, 2013.

However, upon checking Company D’s financial reports, which also included details of Company E, it was discovered the two companies only received 83.7 million pounds (RM448 million).

“This means that the difference of 14.3 million pounds from the transaction cannot be traced,” said the White Paper.

Since then, the Grand Plaza Serviced Apartments’ performance had deteriorated, causing FUPSB to maintain its operations at a loss.

It also meant that FUPSB was unable to repay the loan it got from Felda as an advance for purchasing the real estate. FUPSB was later forced to take out a 48 million pounds (RM257 million) loan from a financial institution to repay Felda.

To date, Felda foots RM19.82 million in losses a year to operate the Grand Plaza Serviced Apartments.

3. Eagle High – No guarantee of recovering RM2.07b

In December 2015, the Felda board approved the purchase of “exchangeable bonds” that later became a 37 percent stake in Indonesia’s Eagle High Plantations Tbk (EHP) for US$505.4 million (RM2.07 billion). The sales and purchase agreement was signed on Dec 23, 2016.

The purchase was made through FIC Properties Sdn Bhd (FPSB) from a “Company A1” as referred by the White Paper.

It noted that the Finance Ministry, at the time led by former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, was also involved in the deal by providing “strategic advice and suggestions on investment structure”.

The purchase price of US$505.4 million meant Felda was buying the EHP stake at US$0.043 per share, even though they were worth US$0.0098 on the open market at the time the board first gave its approval.

In other words, the shares had an open market value of just US$115.2 million (RM472 million).

“This meant that Felda agreed to buy the EHP share at 344.12 percent higher than the shares’ market price at the time,” said the White Paper.

Furthermore, it said all of EHP’s shares had been used by Company A1 as collateral for loans from Credit Suisse.

It added that Bank Negara Malaysia had also raised questions about the deal.

“Despite knowing the risks involved, the Felda board of directors approved the investment without additional due diligence and without justification in the meeting minutes over the rationale of the decision,” it said.

However, the deal also included an option that would allow Felda to recoup the full US$505.4 million, on top of a return of six percent per annum.

Najib had used this as a defence against critics of the deal, uploading the White Paper’s acknowledgement of the put option on Facebook, which he highlighted in red.

Ironically, in the paragraph immediate after, the White Paper said there was no evidence that Felda had carried out a credit risk evaluation of Company A1 to ensure that it is capable of repaying in the event Felda exercised the put option.

The White Paper also noted that Felda received a corporate guarantee of US$371 million from a “Company A2” on the purchase the EHP shares, but again, it did not conduct a credit evaluation.

It said a forensic audit found Company A2 to be only worth US$343.8 million, despite the US$371 million guarantee.

4. Vertical City: Felda risks RM1.5b in losses

The Kuala Lumpur Vertical City (KLVC) is a proposed integrated development on Felda’s 20-acre land along Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur.

FIC entered into an agreement with what the White Paper called “Company F” for this development.

In 2017, it was widely reported that Company F, after receiving power of attorney, proceeded to sell Felda’s land to itself and another “Company G” between Dec 2, 2015 and Nov 7, 2016 without Felda’s knowledge.

The White Paper provided further insight into the scandal, stating that the FIC management had knowledge of the matter since July 2016, but did not take any action. The Felda board only discovered the matter eight months after the transaction.

Representing Felda without its knowledge of the sale, Company F priced the land at RM270 million even though it was valued at RM618 million.

Furthermore, it asked for 10 percent of the RM270 million sale price to be paid to Felda, while the remaining 90 percent would be pocketed by Company F.

The sales and purchase agreements, organised by Company F, claimed Felda had no intention to appoint its own lawyers.

Apart from the land controversy, Felda had also agreed to rent 700,000 square feet of office space for 20 years in the development by Company F, even though its needs can only fill up 3.6 percent of the space.

“The lease agreement caused FIC to be exposed to the risk of suffering losses in rental income of at least RM1.5 billion over 20 years,” it said.

…more
Eight dodgy Felda deals under the microscope
10 April 2019 – Malaysiakini

07
Apr
19

The People v Najib Razak EP01: And so, it begins (Narrated by Patrick Teoh)


…source
[PODCAST] The People v Najib Razak EP 01: And so, it begins
The Malaysian Insight
Published on Apr 3, 2019

06
Apr
19

Summary of Najib’s SRC charges

(Graphic source: Malaysiakini)

04
Apr
19

AG’s opening statement at Najib’s SRC trial

AG’s opening statement at Najib’s SRC trial

The following is Attorney General Tommy Thomas’ opening statement at Najib’s SRC trial, reproduced in full:

May it please Your Lordship,

1. It is my duty and privilege to open the first trial in our courts against a former Prime Minister, who for nearly a decade, occupied the most powerful office in the land and wielded near absolute power, which carries with it enormous responsibility, which my office intends to discharge in order to establish that the Accused is guilty of the seven (7) charges that he is facing before Your Lordship.

2. The Accused during his entire period in office as Prime Minister, at which time these offences were committed, simultaneously held the office of Minister of Finance, thereby combining maximum political power and control of the nation’s purse. In holding the office of the Prime Minister, and thus the nation’s highest elected public officer and Head of Government, the highest trust was reposed by our people in the Accused. In such circumstances, the law demands the highest standards of care in the discharge by the Accused of his duties and obligations as trustee of public offices.

3. Not being satisfied with the holding of the twin positions of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Accused was also appointed the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) and Advisor Emeritus in its fully owned subsidiary, SRC International Sdn. Bhd. (“SRC International”). A common feature of both companies was that the true power in directing and managing their affairs did not lie with the Board of Directors, as is required by law and is the universal practice wherever companies carry on business, but in the person of the Accused by virtue of his holding these two positions.

4. The operation of Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution that “all persons are equal before the law” is amply demonstrated by this trial. A former Prime Minister is charged under due process in the ordinary court of the land, like any other Accused. The Accused is not above the law and his prosecution and this trial should serve as precedents for all future holders of this august office.

My Lord,

5. This trial is the first of many kleptocracy-1MDB-linked prosecutions. As required under Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I will state briefly the nature of the offences charged and the evidence by which the Prosecution proposes to prove the guilt of the Accused.

6. In the instant prosecution, the Accused is charged for the following offences —

a. One (1) charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 for abuse of position;
b. Three (3) charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust;
c. Three (3) charges under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 for money laundering; and

7. To prove the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Prosecution will be relying on direct and circumstantial evidence, both oral and documentary, to prove that the Accused, on the dates, times and manner as contained in the charges, is guilty of each of the charges against him.

One (1) charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 for abuse of position

8. For the charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009, evidence will establish that the Accused at all material times, as an officer of a public body, to wit, as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, used his office and/or position to obtain for himself a gratification of RM42 million. Evidence will abundantly establish that the Accused was directly involved in the decision on behalf of the government of Malaysia to give government guarantees for the loans amounting to RM4 billion received by SRC International Sdn Bhd from Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Diperbadankan) (“KWAP”).

9. In proving the ingredients of Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009, evidence — oral, documentary and/or circumstantial, will be led by the prosecution to establish the following —

a. Proposed establishment of SRC International Sdn Bhd;

b. Proposed setting-up grant of RM3 billion;

c. SRC International’s request for a government loan for RM3.95 billion;

d. The appointment of SRC International’s Board of Directors, and the appointment of one Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil as CEO of SRC International;

e. Matters that led to the approval of the Government of Malaysia through the Ministry of Finance for the issuance of a RM2 billion government guarantee in favour of SRC International;

f. Matters that led to the approval of the Government of Malaysia through the Ministry of Finance for the issuance of a further RM2 billion government guarantee in favour of SRC International;

g. Monies totalling RM42 million, sourced from SRC International, were channelled through the company accounts of Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd (a wholly-owned subsidiary of SRC International Sdn Bhd) and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd (purportedly appointed as SRC International’s corporate social responsibility partner);

h. The Accused, between 17 August 2011 and 8 February 2012, as a result of the aforesaid, had received as gratification the said monies totalling RM42 million into his AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 and AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 bank accounts.

Three (3) charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust

10. For the charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code, evidence will establish that the Accused at all material times, as agent, to wit, as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and Advisor Emeritus of SRC International, whilst entrusted with monies belonging to SRC International, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the RM27 million, RM5 million and RM10 million belonging to SRC International.

11. In proving the ingredients of Section 409 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust, evidence — oral, documentary and/or circumstantial, will be led by the prosecution to establish the following —

a. A Special Resolution was passed to amend SRC International’s Articles of Association to appoint the Accused as Advisor Emeritus. As Advisor Emeritus the Accused shall advise the Company’s Board on material matters and matters of strategic interest to Malaysia, and that the Board shall give due consideration to and implement any advice of the Advisor Emeritus in the best interest of the Company;

b. That the Accused had dishonestly caused himself to wrongfully gain RM42 million and/or caused SRC International to wrongfully lose RM42 million;

c. That between 24 and 29 December 2014, a sum of RM27 million belonging to SRC International was remitted to the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account through the company accounts of Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd;

d. That between 24 and 29 December 2014, a sum of RM5 million belonging to SRC International was remitted to the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 account through the company accounts of Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd; and

e. That between 10 February and 2 March 2015, a sum of RM10 million belonging to SRC International was remitted to the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account through the company accounts of Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd.

Three (3) charges under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 for money laundering

12. For the charges under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 for money laundering, evidence — oral, documentary and/or circumstantial, will be led by the prosecution to establish the following —

a. That the Accused on or about 26 December 2014 engaged in money laundering to wit by receiving RM27 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, in the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account;

b. That the Accused on or about 29 December 2014 via a Real Time Electronic Transfer of Funds and Securities (“RENTAS”) instruction, remitted RM27 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, from the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account to the company account of Permai Binraya Sdn Bhd;

c. That the Accused on or about 26 December 2014 engaged in money laundering to wit by receiving RM5 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, in the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 account;

d. That the Accused on or about 29 December 2014 via a Real Time Electronic Transfer of Funds and Securities (“RENTAS”) instruction, remitted RM5 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, from the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 account to the company account of Putra Perdana Construction Sdn Bhd;

e. That the Accused on or about 10 February 2015 engaged in money laundering to wit by receiving RM10 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, in the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account;

f. That the Accused on or about 10 February 2015 remitted RM10 million, being the proceeds of an unlawful activity, from the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-1MY no. 211-202-201188-0 account to the Accused’s AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 account;

g. That the Accused had issued a total of 15 personal cheques from his AmPrivate Banking-MY no. 211-202-201190-6 account totalling an approximate sum of RM10,776,514.00;

h. Evidence will also establish that in December 2014, the Accused’s credit card was charged US$130,625 for expenses made at Chanel, an exclusive fashion store in Honolulu; and

i. Evidence will establish that the personal cheques were issued for, among others, payment for renovation works carried out at the Accused’s residence at No.11 Jalan Langgak Duta, Kuala Lumpur, the Accused’s residence in Pekan, Pahang and cheques issued to various Barisan Nasional component political parties.

My Lord,

13. The burden is now on the Prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Accused, Mohd. Najib bin Hj Abd Razak is guilty of the criminal charges preferred against him at this trial.

…source
AG’s opening statement at Najib’s SRC trial
April 03, 2019 – theedgemarkets.com

04
Apr
19

Malaysia ex-PM Najib goes on trial

Malaysia ex-PM Najib goes on trial

Malaysia’s former prime minister Najib Razak (C) leaves a court in Kuala Lumpur on 3 April, 2019 after his trial over alleged involvement in the looting of sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, a state investment vehicle established to develop the economy of the Southeast Asian nation. (Mohd Rasfan / AFP Photo)

Malaysia’s disgraced ex-leader Najib Razak pleaded not guilty to all charges against him as he went on trial Wednesday over a multi-billion-dollar fraud, almost a year after his shock election loss.

The 65-year-old faced the first of several trials over his alleged involvement in the looting of sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, a state investment vehicle established to develop the economy of the Southeast Asian nation.

The former premier and his cronies are accused of plundering billions of dollars from the fund and spending it on everything from high-end real estate to artwork and a luxury yacht.

He had been tipped to win another term in office easily last year and extend his coalition’s six-decade stranglehold on power, only to be soundly defeated by his former boss, Mahathir Mohamad, who rode a wave of public anger over 1MDB to the premiership.

In the months that followed, once-dormant investigations into the controversy were relaunched and Najib was hit with dozens of corruption charges linked to the plundering of the fund.

A small crowd of supporters was waiting for Najib as he arrived at the Kuala Lumpur court ahead of his trial, and he prayed with them for a few minutes before entering the building to shouts of “Long Live Najib”.

‘Near absolute power’

Looking relaxed in the dock, he denied seven corruption and money-laundering charges related to the alleged theft of 42 million ringgit (US$10.3 million) from SRC International, a former 1MDB unit. It is just a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he allegedly stole.

Opening the prosecution, Attorney-General Tommy Thomas told the High Court it was the “first trial in our courts against a former prime minister, who for nearly a decade occupied the most powerful office in the land and wielded near absolute power.

“Such privilege carries with it enormous responsibility.

“The accused is not above the law,” he added.

After the first witness, an official from the Companies Commission of Malaysia, gave largely technical evidence related to corporate records, the trial was adjourned.

The judge set the next hearing for 15 April, and trial dates until 10 May. Najib left without commenting, to cheers from his supporters waiting outside court.

…more
Malaysia ex-PM Najib goes on trial
4 April 2019 – Asean Post




THE Al Jazeera interview

Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!

The dawn of A Better Malaysia!
Rafidah Aziz, Hannah Yeoh, Ambiga at TTDI ceramah

 

Mahathir in Putrajaya ceramah

 

What happened to 1MDB’s money? – CNBC Video
Nuclear lessons for Malaysia (Part 1) (Part 2)
BN govt is directing attention to distant past and distant future, in order to distract people from present misdeeds and poor governance
Felda - A picture is worth a thousand words
How the 1MDB Scandal Spread Across the World (WSJ)
We cannot afford ridiculously expensive RM55 Billion ECRL!
All that is necessary
for the triumph of evil
is for good men
to do nothing.

- Edmund Burke
When the people
fears their government,
there is TYRANNY;
when the government
fears the people,
there is LIBERTY.

- Thomas Jefferson
Do you hear the people sing?

Archives

Advertisements