Wednesday, February 3, 2016


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on February 03, 2016

1. Following upon the Malaysian A.G.’s (Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali) decision that the report of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission showed there were no wrong doings by the Prime Minister in relation to the 2.6 billion Ringgit and 42 million Ringgit in his personal accounts, perhaps coincidentally, the French legal authorities have initiated legal action on the payment of so-called consultation fees to companies under the control of Razak Baginda, a close associate of Dato’ Sri Najib. Then the Swiss A.G. released a media statement against former officials of the state-owned fund 1MDB and persons unknown, on suspicion of bribery of foreign public officials (Article 322septies of the Swiss Criminal Code – SCC), misconduct in public office (Article 314295 SCC), money laundering, (Article 305bis279 SCC) and criminal mismanagement (Article 158 SCC). The office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) has requested the Malaysian Authorities for mutual assistance. This request for mutual assistance now puts the agreement in principle between Malaysia and Switzerland into concrete forms.

2. Investigation by the Swiss A.G. has revealed serious indications that the funds have been misappropriated from Malaysian State companies.

3. The Swiss A.G. mentioned specifically Petrosaudi, SRC, Genting/Tanjong and ADMIC.

4. The sum involved is stated to be USD 4 billion. The object of the request for mutual assistance is therefore to advise the companies and the Malaysian Government of the results of the Swiss criminal proceedings, with the aim of finding out whether loss of the scale have been sustained.

5. The Malaysian A.G. responded immediately that he and the relevant Malaysian authorities are keen to establish all the facts about 1MDB that have led to recent allegations against the company. However in stating the number of authorities in the ongoing investigations he mentioned only three i.e. the Public Accounts Committee, the Royal Malaysian Police and the Auditor General’s Department. No mention is made of the Central Bank (Bank Negara) which actually submitted a report.

6. It is public knowledge that the A.G. dismissed this report without explanation and that Bank Negara appealed against the dismissal. The appeal was rejected by the A.G.

7. Now the A.G. has dismissed the report by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission with instruction that MACC stops its investigation.

8. The contents of these reports are the results of serious investigations by reputable authorities. Will the A.G. in response to this request by the Swiss A.G. submit the reports for the latter’s examination and assessment? Or will the A.G. simply dismiss these reports as of no relevance in the Swiss A.G’s investigation, perusal and assessment of the loss of USD 4 billion by 1MDB.

9. Already the A.G. has warned that “any attempt by media organisations to conflate the two sets of investigation is irresponsible and prejudicial”. Clearly the AG does not want the Swiss A.G. to know whether the money in the Prime Minister’s personal accounts comes from 1MDB or not.

10. The public has always insisted that the funds in the personal accounts of Dato’ Sri Najib is from 1MDB. The A.G. in dismissing the two reports has not proven that it is a donation from a dead King and other Arab individual. There is no clear explanation as to how this huge sum of money was moved into Najib’s accounts, the banks used by these Arabs, the sources of the fund, the business of the donor.

11. The Saudi authorities have already declared that there are no records of the King giving any money to Dato’ Sri Najib.

12. The Saudis do make large donations to Bahrain and Jordan and perhaps other countries. But these were not personal gifts to individuals. These were from their Government to the Governments of the recipients.

13. The claim that the USD700 million were for fighting IS is not credible because Najib openly claimed that it was for UMNO to win the election in 2013.

14. Winning elections in Malaysia does not require billions of Ringgit.

15. The money is said to have been moved to Singapore banks where it is supposed to be frozen. So how come the claim that RM2.3 billion has been returned to the Saudis? On what basis has the Singapore banks unfrozen it??

16. The European Union Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the erosion of democratic rights in Malaysia. This is likely to be because of arbitrary arrests of a Malaysian who had made police reports together with his lawyer; the improper dismissal of the previous Malaysian A.G. just before he was expected to bring a charge against the PM, the emasculating of the Public Accounts Committee by appointing its members to the Government. No report could be made by the task force for investigating money in Najib’s private accounts. But Bank Negara did make it own report.

17. The current A.G., with whom the Swiss A.G. seeks cooperation, was appointed by the PM through false representation made to the King. This means the A.G. owes to the PM his position. Can he be expected to charge the person to whom he owes his position? Knowing his predecessor was dismissed for trying to do the same, the new A.G. is not likely to prefer a charge against the PM. Hence his dismissal of the reports by Bank Negara and the MACC. He is therefore unlikely to provide the Swiss A.G. with any evidence which may incriminate his employer.

18. If any truth is to be obtained by the Swiss A.G. and the European Parliament, they need to know Malaysian laws and practices. For this it is important that they appoint Malaysian lawyers to work with their lawyers in the interest of justice.