1. It is still a civil suit for forfeiture of assets and not a criminal suit.
Nothing has changed since last year except that more assets are listed. It is also important to note that civil asset forfeiture lawsuits are filed against the assets themselves and not individuals (such as Jhow Low etc). Owners of the assets can contest the forfeiture, which they are doing.
2. It is essentially a continuation of the previous suit in July 2016.
Nothing has changed since last year except that more assets are listed. However, the one that caught the public's interest is the allegation of a USD27 million (RM118 million) diamond gifted to MO1's wife - which everyone knows it refers to Datin Sri Rosmah, the Prime Minister's wife. We shall go into detail on this later.
1MDB did not borrow or lose any more money since last year July 2016. In fact, 1MDB actually made significant progress in making money and paying off debts over the last year.
3. None of the money allegedly spent or invest legally belongs to 1MDB.
This means that those money spent is not 1MDB's money. I had proven this extensively last year in this post. Events since my post one year ago had further confirmed this - especially the IPIC-1MDB settlement in April this year where IPIC was reported to have arranged a buyer for the USD2.5 billion worth of units while agreeing to the following: "The parties have also agreed to enter into good faith discussions in relation to payments made by 1MDB Group to certain entities."
An example would be this:
Imagine if I pay you RM1000 to invest and pay to your bank account. In return you give me an IOU saying you owe RM1.000 and you guaranteed that I will get minimum RM1,000 back.
Then you pay RM500 to a gangster.
Can people then say I paid RM500 to gangster?
People would also have to explain why the sovereign fund IPIC took the trouble to guarantee US$3.5 billion worth of bonds of another country's sovereign fund. And why Aabar would want to guarantee another US$2.5 billion worth of fund units of 1MDB.
An example would be this:
Imagine if I pay you RM1000 to invest and pay to your bank account. In return you give me an IOU saying you owe RM1.000 and you guaranteed that I will get minimum RM1,000 back.
Then you pay RM500 to a gangster.
Can people then say I paid RM500 to gangster?
People would also have to explain why the sovereign fund IPIC took the trouble to guarantee US$3.5 billion worth of bonds of another country's sovereign fund. And why Aabar would want to guarantee another US$2.5 billion worth of fund units of 1MDB.
This is also the reason why 1MDB keeps insisting that none of their money has been lost.
4. DOJ's allegations that the BSI or Cayman units were over-valued or wrongly-valued are irrelevant to 1MDB
As previously explained, the value of the units are guaranteed by the real Aabar Investments PJS. As far as 1MDB is concerned, the minimum value of the units is what Aabar had guaranteed it for. As was reported by the Singapore press, Aabar had arranged a buyer for the USD2.5 billion units (which includes the USD940 million units remaining in the BSI funds) and that 1MDB had already started to receive the cash proceeds.
In 1MDB's point of view, they had a certain money in the BSI units guaranteed by the real Aabar. Since the real Aabar had now gotten someone to buy the fund units and pay 1MDB the correct amount then there is no question of whether the fund units are worthless or undervalued or overvalued.
In 1MDB's point of view, they had a certain money in the BSI units guaranteed by the real Aabar. Since the real Aabar had now gotten someone to buy the fund units and pay 1MDB the correct amount then there is no question of whether the fund units are worthless or undervalued or overvalued.
5. DOJ's allegations that money was siphoned off from 1MDB's Deutsche Bank loan has nothing to do with 1MDB
DOJ reports that the Deutsche Bank loan was to pay for the cancellation of options held by Aabar in return for IPIC guaranteeing 1MDB's USD3.5 billion loan in the year 2012.
According to the DOJ, the money was paid to a "fake" Aabar Seychelles which they claim had nothing to do with the real Aabar in Abu Dhabi.
However, DOJ also confirms that the sole director of Aabar Seychelles was the Managing Director of the real Aabar and that the shareholder of Aabar Seychelles listed in the certificate of incumbency (also known as the company registration) document is the real Aabar.
As far as 1MDB is concerned, they had used the Deutsche Bank loan to pay Aabar for the purpose of cancelling the options. Whether it is a "fake Aabar" or "real Aabar" does not matter to 1MDB as long as the options were cancelled - and it was. This is especially so since the party that had dealt with at that time as the official managing director Aabar, Mohamad Husseiny and the company registration documents had clearly stated that the owner of the "fake Aabar" is the real Aabar.
Therefore, if there was any siphoning of money or fraud, it was Aabar PJS in the Abu Dhabi which was defrauded - not 1MDB.
Which brings us to the next point...
Which brings us to the next point...
6. Neither Prime Minister Najib, Rosmah nor 1MDB was named as a defendant in the DOJ civil suit.
This means the US DOJ does not consider Najib, Rosmah or even 1MDB to have committed any wrong-doing. In fact, one Abu Dhabi's sovereign USD125 billion fund Mubadala Investment Company which owns IPIC and Aabar now has now been named as an involved party whose interests will be affected.
7. There is no evidence that Rosmah ever received the US$27 million diamond
First of all, receiving a gift is not illegal. According to the DOJ lawsuit, Jho Low had purchased USD200 million worth of jewelry over the years and had given it to various parties including to his mother.
Jho Low was also alleged to have given millions in jewelry to his alleged girlfriend, the super-hot Australian model Miranda Kerr who recently married the SnapChat billionaire founder .
So, if receiving a gift is illegal then Jho Low's mother and Miranda Kerr will have to go to jail too.
However, the circumstances which the DOJ says that Rosmah was alleged to be the recipient of the diamond is very suspicious.
Firstly, the DOJ alleges that Rosmah viewed the diamond with a group of people on board of the yacht called Topaz.
However, the circumstances which the DOJ says that Rosmah was alleged to be the recipient of the diamond is very suspicious.
Firstly, the DOJ alleges that Rosmah viewed the diamond with a group of people on board of the yacht called Topaz.
The Topaz is not any ordinary yacht but at that time was the largest yacht in the world and was and is still owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed.
Sheikh Mansour is not only among the world's richest man with a fortune estimated at USD38 billion (RM162 billion) in the year 2014 but he is also the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the brother of the current President of UAE,
And plus, he is also the Chairman of IPIC and the boss of both Aabar Chairman Khadem Al-Qubaisi and also Aabar CEO Mohamed Badawy Al-Husseiny - the two persons most implicated in fraud and receiving funds in this entire 1MDB affair.
Both persons have never been charged for any crime. In fact, it was recently reported Khadem Al Qubasi is still in the UAE and under the protection of Sheikh Mansour Zayed.
This leaves us with two other possibilities.
1) The diamond may have been a gift from Sheikh Mansour to Rosmah. Arab royalty has a habit of giving expensive gifts to members of the leadership of other countries. After all, US$27 million is barely 2 days of interest for Sheikh Mansour's US$38 billion fortune.
This is assuming that Rosmah even received the diamond in the first place. After all, a VIP from another country does not simply go on to the world's largest yacht owned by Arab royalty and one of the world's richest persons without the owner knowing.
However, if Rosmah did receive the diamond as a gift from Sheikh Mansour then I think she should return it as it is inappropriate to receive such an expensive gift.
2) Rosmah never received the diamond at all and DOJ was misled by the false information fed by the opposition.
According to the DOJ suit, it is important to note that Rosmah did not make the order for the diamond, pay for the diamond nor personally received the diamond.
It has also never been proven that she even posses the diamond.
It has also never been proven that she even posses the diamond.
DOJ's allegation is that a Malaysian friend had collected the diamond and she was supposed to then hand over the US$27 million (RM118 million) diamond to Rosmah. But there is never any proof that the diamond was handed over to Rosmah.
This brings us to the next point...
8. The whole diamond necklace and DOJ lawsuit seems suspiciously politically-motivated
Firstly, the DOJ had no evidence that Rosmah ever received the diamond but proceeded to include that story in all its juicy details in the suit anyway.
Secondly, the story has always been consistent with the opposition story about Rosmah buyting diamonds and cincin - until PKR's Rafizi Ramli was sued by Najib and said to the court that he was "just joking"
Secondly, the story has always been consistent with the opposition story about Rosmah buyting diamonds and cincin - until PKR's Rafizi Ramli was sued by Najib and said to the court that he was "just joking"
Thirdly, the timing is suspicious as it comes a week before Malays balik kampung for the Hari Raya where such a juicy story would be discussed.
It is no secret that Pakatan is hoping for a "Malay Tsunami" and such a story at such a timing would benefit Pakatan the most.
It is also no secret that Pakatan is working with and has received funding from George Soros to help topple the BN government and Najib.
It is also no secret that Pakatan is working with and has received funding from George Soros to help topple the BN government and Najib.
Late last year, the famous expose website Wikileaks had leaked details of a March 2016 lobbying by George Soros to the US Government to remove Najib and replace him with Anwar Ibrahim.
 |
| please don't call Anwar as a "barua" Amerika |
 |
| One reason why the USA should remove Najib: China! |
Soros also told the USA Governmetn that Anwar would be instrumental as the new leader of Malaysia if Najib falls. And even if Najib doesn't fall, Anwar can provide the USA Govt with "insight and strategic leverage" on Malaysia.
Four months later after that lobbying, the USA Government's DOJ launched a civil suit against 1MDB and popularizing the MO1 name to cause maximum damage to PM Najib and BN.
How coincidental and convenient!
That led me to this particular excerpt in the DOJ court document regarding where the DOJ seeks to recover movie collectibles purchased by the owners of Red Granite, Riza Aziz and McFarland.
Rather than saying "we seek to recover memorabilia purchased by Aziz and McFarlane as we believe it was paid for using illicit funds", the DOJ chose to sensationalize it by publishing excerpts of email exchanges between the two persons who were merely joking about their shared hobby.
I have asked several legal professionals and they say that this is highly unusual, unprofessional and totally unnecessary for a legal writ.
It seem to be designed to incite hatred and to provide sound-bites - like the one done by MalaysiaKini.
And more shockingly this diamond that DOJ had written so extensively in the civil suit IS NOT the subject of the items that DOJ says they want to seize due to alleged money laundering.
Yes, the much talked about diamond is not a subject of the DOJ's civil suit!
Is this because there is no such proof that the item exist nor gifted to DS Rosmah nor in the possession of DS Rosmah or was it because it simply cannot be linked to money laundering?
This is a proper legal document - not a Robert Ludlum fiction novel.
Serious questions now have to be asked of the DOJ as to why did they even bother writing such sensationalized details of the diamond in their civil suit if it is not even a subject of the civil suit.
Can anyone answer? Can Mahathir or Matthias or Soros answer?
Writing such details in a legal civil suit without a legal basis or aim other than to inflict political damage on behalf of Pakatan means there is a sure sign of collaboration or deliberate feeding of misleading stories from here to the USA.
Strangely, some pro-opposition individuals in Malaysia are even proud and prepared to be called a CIA agent or foreign agent as was reported just last week in MalaysiaKini.
How coincidental and convenient!
That led me to this particular excerpt in the DOJ court document regarding where the DOJ seeks to recover movie collectibles purchased by the owners of Red Granite, Riza Aziz and McFarland.
Rather than saying "we seek to recover memorabilia purchased by Aziz and McFarlane as we believe it was paid for using illicit funds", the DOJ chose to sensationalize it by publishing excerpts of email exchanges between the two persons who were merely joking about their shared hobby.
I have asked several legal professionals and they say that this is highly unusual, unprofessional and totally unnecessary for a legal writ.
It seem to be designed to incite hatred and to provide sound-bites - like the one done by MalaysiaKini.
Nowhere was it also mentioned that Riza Aziz and McFarland had been highly successful and made a lot of money in their movies - which would have allowed them to finance their future movies directly and with other investors.
Certainly this DOJ writ does more political damage than actual legal damage - especially since the previous case in July has not moved since.
And more shockingly this diamond that DOJ had written so extensively in the civil suit IS NOT the subject of the items that DOJ says they want to seize due to alleged money laundering.
Yes, the much talked about diamond is not a subject of the DOJ's civil suit!
Is this because there is no such proof that the item exist nor gifted to DS Rosmah nor in the possession of DS Rosmah or was it because it simply cannot be linked to money laundering?
This is a proper legal document - not a Robert Ludlum fiction novel.
Serious questions now have to be asked of the DOJ as to why did they even bother writing such sensationalized details of the diamond in their civil suit if it is not even a subject of the civil suit.
Can anyone answer? Can Mahathir or Matthias or Soros answer?
Writing such details in a legal civil suit without a legal basis or aim other than to inflict political damage on behalf of Pakatan means there is a sure sign of collaboration or deliberate feeding of misleading stories from here to the USA.
Strangely, some pro-opposition individuals in Malaysia are even proud and prepared to be called a CIA agent or foreign agent as was reported just last week in MalaysiaKini.
Why would Malaysians and our opposition leaders want to work with foreign powers to launch propaganda attacks and bad-mouth Malaysia just so they can be the ones in power?
That is sabotaging your own country, bro. It's treason.
9. 1MDB's profitability and progress is unaffected. No Malaysians or their future generations will end up paying for 1MDB's debts.
Due to the April 2017 IPIC-1MDB settlement and also the past rationalization efforts, 1MDB now has assets of RM60 billion compared to still outstanding long-term (up to 2039) debts of an estimated RM41.7 billion.
If you can believe MalaysiaKini then the profitability of 1MDB will be even more as the forecast that the value of Bandar Malaysia is RM90 billion instead of RM26 billion.
Hence the value of 1MDB's assets is RM124 billion compared to RM41.7 billion debt.
Hence the value of 1MDB's assets is RM124 billion compared to RM41.7 billion debt.
But now the Pakatan folks are saying that Govt will make huge profits on 1MDB and there is no more debt that will be a burden on your next generation and the generation after that or need to bail-out?
So, there is no question of anyone having to pay for 1MDB's debts. In fact, the possibility of 1MDB being very profitable is high.
10. Unlike in the past, the financial markets did not react to the news of this DOJ suit. Neither are many Malaysians
The Ringgit did not weaken substantially and the stock market did not drop.
In fact, the Bursa stock market went up today despite the news. It continued its rally as Malaysia's economy continues to perform well and our prospects continue to brighten. Investors continue to believe in the transformation agenda under Prime Minister Najib.
In fact, the Bursa stock market went up today despite the news. It continued its rally as Malaysia's economy continues to perform well and our prospects continue to brighten. Investors continue to believe in the transformation agenda under Prime Minister Najib.
Unlike in the past, Malaysians now seem indifferent to the DOJ-1MDB news
As Uber-Blogger Rocky Bru observed today:
"It's been a year since the US Department of Justice made that explosive lawsuit announcement involving 1MDB. Since then, the Americans have elected a new President, Dr Mahathir Mohamad has confirmed his desire to be Prime Minister of Malaysia once again, and the DOJ's lawsuit hasn't moved an inch. The department's latest "action" has similar elements and juicy bits that featured in its "action" of last July's. So why aren't Malaysians not debating it like they did last July? I belong to several dozens of WhatsApp groups but only one is discussing the DOJ's action and by "discussing" I mean one individual has been providing all the links to DOJ news that might be spun against PM Najib Razak. Does that mean we are immune to news involving alleged corruption and stealing of billions from our coffers?
Or are Malaysians generally not buying what the DOJ's claiming, especially since nothing has come out of their last action?"
To most people and also thanks to the successful rationalization of 1MDB and its tangible evidence of its progress, most people feel that the 1MDB story is stale or "basi".
Pakatan's continued attack on 1MDB did not help them in the Sarawak elections last year where they had lost their pants. Neither did it helped them in the twin by-elections at Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar.
Pakatan's continued attack on 1MDB did not help them in the Sarawak elections last year where they had lost their pants. Neither did it helped them in the twin by-elections at Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar.
So, you must wonder why Pakatan is behaving like the (oft-misquoted) proverbial definition of idiots who "do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?
No comments:
Post a Comment