Sunday, June 10, 2018

Dr M warns hasty bid to charge Najib may see him go free-Yes but why have Azman Hashim and AMBank not been raided,assets and documents secured?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It is obvious that  hastty bid to charge Najib may see him go free,but why is there no action at Ground Zero, AmBank?

Related image

That Ambank is Ground Zero for the 1MDB theft is clear to see from the above transaction. Mahathir and government must not be seen to be taking the Australian path of protecting the main players.
See Banking Spin Starts commentary from Sarawak Report.

Why has the executive chairman Azman Hashim not  being questioned? Why has AMBank not been raided, and all relevant documents secured?

Dr M warns hasty bid to charge Najib may see him go free
 (Updated )
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned that a hasty attempt to charge his predecessor Najib Abdul Razak over the 1MDB scandal may see him go free.
"Loads of people are awaiting - when are we going to arrest Najib. But it is not so easy, we need to collect the kind of evidence that will stand up in court.
"If we fail to do that, he might win. Just think what would happen if he wins a trial and is found not guilty.

"Then all the promises we made, all the bad things we said about him would be questioned by the people who voted us in," he told a dinner event with the Malaysian diaspora in Japan tonight.
Mahathir said the government wanted to ensure there was strong evidence to secure a guilty verdict.
"We hope we will be able to gather enough evidence to charge him in court and hopefully he will be found guilty.
"We don't know because unlike the previous government, we don't have any influence over the courts.
"We have decided we will be truly democratic in the sense that the people's choice must be respected, we must understand democratic rules and procedures and we must not take power in our hands," he said.
Mahathir, who previously served as prime minister from 1981 to 2003 and was then accused of being an authoritarian leader, said his new government will ensure there is no concentration of power.
"Power in the country must be divided between the legislative, executive and judiciary.
"This kind of check and balance can make sure that none of us does the wrong things so that it will not be easy for us to ride roughshod over the country and just throw people into jail.
"So, I think that would be a relieve to Najib," he said.
Mahathir, in his speech, also defended the government's decision to impose a travel ban on Najib.
"Loads of people nowadays disappear. Even 'Jamal Tongkol' has disappeared," he said in reference to Sungai Besar Umno chief Jamal Md Yunos who is wanted by police but had reportedly fled to Indonesia.
"We don't know who else is going to disappear but we hope before they can disappear, we can go through the law of the country and punish the people who broke the law," he said.

Time to retake Luconia Shoals,Ananda Krishnan's Pexco should lead the way

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Related image

Self explanatory ,given the change in government ,and the urgent need to dismantle Najib Razak's China-South China Sea deals.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Najib's Luconia Shoals surrender puts Ananda and Pexco's Sarawak concessions in the middle of the proverbial......

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysia's virtual surrender of Luconia Shoals will have implications for oil concessions in the surrounding area, now only nominally granted by Petronas. The largest of these (their words, not mine) is the acerage granted Ananda Krishnan's Pexco. At least one of Pexco's concessions, labelled Block 3 in a Marine Sarawak document, lies just 68.25 nautical miles south west of the North Shoals.

China may or may not be within its rights to declare anything, including the Pexco concessions,within its Luconina Shoals EEZ, but that is not the point when considering the actions of a country that has shown it is happy to ignore international laws, norms and customs.

Poor Ananda, all this even after contributing RM 2 billion to the 1 MDB resuce..........



Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this. 

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues. 

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.
(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologistchose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.
It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.
"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.
They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.
"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.
The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.
"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.
"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."



ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

1MDB: New AG not likely to find much at his AG's Chambers

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported, on the matter of new Malaysian AG Tommy Thomas and 1MDB:

The new Attorney General said that all matters pertaining to 1MDB are the immediate priority of the Government.
"I have to study the papers in that scandal. We shall institute criminal and civil proceedings in our courts against the alleged wrongdoers. All are equal before the law and no one is spared," he said when he reported to work at the AG's Chambers at Presint 4 on Wednesday (June 6).

This is a nice sentiment , and very sensible ,except that the 1MDB case is exceptional in that the Malaysian Attorney General and all other regulatory authorities were determined not to know anything.
Consequently , much of the information is with foreign agencies, and in the public domain. Here s but one example:

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Najib & Rosmah conducted 1MDB business on their own Why not seize the assets of Low Hock Peng,Robin Tan ,and Bustari Yusof who were also present ?

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Najib & Rosmah conducted 1MDB business on their own :Why not seize the assets of Low Hock Peng,Vincent  Tan ,and Bustari Yusof who were also present ?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Image result for larry low hock peng

Larry Low Hock Peng 

Image result for bustari yusof vincent tan

Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan

The IPIC "settlement" seems shaky,and the China "rescue" seems to have fallen apart.
A realistic avenue for the recovery of Malaysian taxpayers' money lost in the 1MDB debacle is needed, and while the US DOJ has an action to do so in play, Malaysians really ought to be helping themselves.

One possible solution may be the seizure of all and any assets held by Low Hock Peng (head of the Low Family,and father of Jho) ,Vincent Tan( head of the Berjaya Group of companies,  father of Robin  Tan) and Datuk Bustari Yusof of Sarawak.

As reported previously on this blog and by Sarawak Report, PM Najib and wife Rosmah illegally conducted 1MDB business with PetroSaudi on their own.It was also reported that those present during those dealings included  Jho Low, Robin Tan,and Bustari Yusof. Arguing that Jho and Robin's presence had nothing to do with their families' business interests would be akin to splitting what  hairs one might find on  Arul Kanda's head, which seems to be in danger of being axed.

It is more likely than not that all three were parties to the business that was conducted,despite not having anything to do with 1MDB.
It follows then that the assets of all three, who represent their families, could be seized as a means of recovering what has been lost from 1MDB.

There are likely to be a number of legal means that might be relied on for the purpose, but Vincent Tan and family,  and Bustari Yusof both are recipients of very lucrative government concessions that may be withdrawn at any time. These could be seized, placed in some form of public trust, and the proceeds used to recoup the 1MDB losses.
As with regards Larry Low Hock Peng and family, is it not time to drop the pretence that they are  "old money" philanthropists? The same may be said of PM Najib, whose own brothers rejected his claim of "legacy family assets".


by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The photo above obtained by Sarawak Report shows PM Najib, wife Rosmah and Petrosaudi's Prince Turki Abdullah and Tarek Obeid in discussion, on board a yacht somewhere off the coast of the south of France.

Clearly visible in the photo are three sets of documents,which appear to be some form of prospectus (using that term in its broadest sense). Interestingly, Rosmah Mansor has her own copy. Obviously, this was no friendly holiday chat over drinks while taking in the sea breeze; detailed business matters were being discussed.

In its own words, PetroSaudi's business dealings in Malaysia have been with 1MDB,and hence it is hard to see that the above discussion did not concern 1MDB. 

The implications for Najib are obvious. To begin with the photo belies the(in any case idiotic) claim made by his  lawyer that his  "signature on 1MDB documents (is)a formality, doesn’t mean he decides or knows all." Consequently this photo adds to the existing evidence that puts him at the very centre of the 1MDB theft. 

Then , the apparent involvement of Rosmah in 1MDB's affairs does seem to confirm the allegations regarding  her, and her son Riza's dealings in 1MDB's cash assets.It is hard to see how Najib , or Rosmah can justify her being involved in discussions concerning 1MDB.

"Innocent Owner" Riza Aziz Attended Yacht Meeting Before Good Star Heist - EXCLUSIVE

"Innocent Owner" Riza Aziz 

Attended Yacht Meeting Before 

Good Star Heist - EXCLUSIVE

Last week in California the Prime Minister’s step-son, Riza Aziz, filed a notice to
 dismiss the US Department of Justice’s seizure of his properties on the grounds that
 he was the “innocent owner” and could not be held responsible for the fact the money was stolen from 1MDB.

Motion to dismiss by Riza’s lawyers
Those properties include a Beverly Hills mansion, the film production company Red Granite’s future earnings from Wolf of Wall Street, a London Belgravia town house and a New York penthouse.
What this defence contends is that Riza had simply no idea that the hundreds of millions that suddenly started coming his way was not stolen, but thought it was a gift. For this reason he reckons he should be allowed to hang on to all the items bought with Malaysia’s stolen development money (money which the Malaysian tax payer is now faced with paying back to the original lenders at high interest rates).
Yet Sarawak Report has established new evidence that Riza was in from the very start on the 1MDB heist, in that he was invited to attend the meeting where the first ‘joint venture’ was cooked up between Jho Low, the Prime Minister and company PetroSaudi on the super-yacht Tatoosh in August 2009.
A trip manifest reveals that the jaunt, which took place between 15-20th August, was organised by a “high-end boutique concierge company” named Baroque, of which Jho Low was a member. According to the note made by the representative for Baroque, Sahle Ghebreyesus, the trip was in fact commissioned by his client Jho Low (whom he describes on the manifest as “my guy”). In March the following year Tarek Obaid also joined Baroque, which is an agency designed to pamper the super-rich:
High-end boutique concierge company that organised the rental of Tatoosh
Photographs later obtained by Sarawak Report show the main players behind the theft of the first billion from 1MDB through the PetroSaudi ‘joint venture’, which was strategised during this super-yacht meeting.
However, we can now confirm that Riza Aziz also joined the party, along with Najib’s key financial cronies Bustari Yusof and Robin Tan.  Robin Tan is the son of Vincent Tan, long associated with BN political funding, and Bustari is the Sarawak PPB party treasurer cum billionaire, who was handed the ‘turnkey contract’ for the Pan Borneo Highway project and whose brother Fadillah has now been appointed Minister for Public Works.
This gives the Bustari brothers control over all the big contracts handed out by the Government, in Malaysia’s notoriously corrupted procurement process and Bustari has rarely strayed from Najib’s side in recent months.
'My guy" Jho Low fixed the trip. "innocent owner" Riza Aziz was also on board
‘My guy” Jho Low fixed the trip. “innocent owner” Riza Aziz was also on board
Did Riza have simply no idea what was going on as these guys did the business which was soon to send money streaming his way?
It was just a few short months later that he went on to launch his production company Red Granite Pictures at the most lavish launch party ever seen at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010.
And over the next two years Jho Low was at Riza’s side at every major film event involving Red Granite Pictures, including Wolf of Wall Street, which was funded by yet more money stolen from 1MDB, thanks to the later ‘Power Purchase Loan’ manoeuvres also organised by Jho Low.
According to the New York Times, Low was furthermore directly involved in the purchase of both of Riza’s US properties in Hollywood and New York. Did Riza simply fail to realise what was going on?
There can only be two conclusions. Either Riza is lying and he did know or Riza is a sad and stupid creature, who was merely used as a front and proxy by the players behind the scandal, which included his friend Jho Low and step-dad Najib.
He is therefore EITHER innocent OR the owner.  He cannot be the “innocent owner”!
left to right - Tarek Obaid, Prince Turki and Najib Razak - the three named Shareholders of the 1MDB PetroSaudi Joint Venture meeting a month before the deal on the yacht Tatoosh.
left to right – Tarek Obaid, Prince Turki and Najib Razak – the three named Shareholders of the 1MDB PetroSaudi Joint Venture meeting a month before the deal on the yacht Tatoosh.
Sarawak Report requests that various journalists, authors and film
 makers, who seek to use this site as their resource for commercial 
projects such as books and documentaries give full credit to this blog, acknowledge copyright and do not seek to apply for awards, 
commissions etc without so doing.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

IPIC -1MDB sham settlement, money laundering confirmed-"Units" worthless ,1MDB insolvent,All parties lied to LSE, regulators

by Ganesh Sahathevan

1MDB CEO Arul Kanda deceived banks using false documents 
accessory after the fact to a series of crimes currently before Singapore's courts

As reported by The Star on 23 May 2018:
Former directors say 1MDB can't pay its debts, RM9.8bil of 'investments' are scams.
"The directors of 1MDB confirmed that 1MDB was insolvent and unable to repay its debts," Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng told reporters on Wednesday (May 23) after the meeting.
"The former CFO (chief finance officer) Azmi Tahir had also written to the ministry in March to state that 1MDB will not be able to service its interest due in April and May 2018."

Which confirms the general  conclusions in this previous article:

Saturday, December 30, 2017

IPIC -1MDB "final" payment: Money laundering confirmed, MOF Inc needs to find USD 50 million every six months &USD 3.5 BILLION by 2022,and these is still USD3.5 BILLION owing IPIC

by  Ganesh Sahathevan

While IPIC and 1MDB have made various statements which give the impression that the Malaysian Government and 1MDB have  collectively settled all debts to IPIC,  their own words suggest the opposite and confirm the following:


"This arbitration settlement has weakened the US DOJ civil suit and claims that 1MDB's funds were stolen," said Umno supreme council member Mohd Puad Zakarshi in a statement today.Mohd Puad is also the director-general of the Information Ministry's Special Affairs Division (Jasa).


 Reuters summary of the IPIC -1MDB settlement: 

Under the settlement (with IPIC), 1MDB will make certain payments to IPIC .... 1MDB said obligations will be met primarily via monetisation of 1MDB-owned investment fund units

The DOJ's assessment of the value of the units:
"relatively worthless"

1MDB and MoF Inc., undertake to IPIC to assume responsibility for all future interest and principal payments under the two bonds issued by 1MDB Group companies that are guaranteed by 1MDB and IPIC; (i) US$1,750,000,000 fixed rate 5.75 per cent. notes due 2022 issued by 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited and (ii) US$1,750,000,000 fixed rate 5.99 per cent. notes due 2022 issued by 1MDB Energy Limited.


Problems began when the Abu Dhabi fund denied it owned Aabar Investments PJS Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company which received payments of $3.5 billion from 1MDB meant for the IPIC.

Happy New Year,One And All.

Ganesh Sahathevan




by Ganesh Sahathevan

In the matters of Public Prosecutor v Yeo Jiawei and Public Prosecutor v Kelvin Ang Wee Keng. prosecutors have told the court:

Brazen Sky (a wholly-owned 1 MDB subsidiary)  owned all the shares of Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC (segregated portfolio company), a fund that was managed by Bridge Partners.

This is contrary to what 1 MDB and Arul Kanda had to say about the Brazen Sky investments, that is, that Brazen Sky owned units in segregated portfolio company that was managed by some party external to 1 MDBThis story was only changed recently, when in a written reply to MP Tony Pua the Malaysian Ministry Of Finance said (as it turns, admitted) that there was no external manager

Consequently the entire series of transactions 1 MDB says were financed out of those units is in doubt, and 1 MDB's  current debts revalued upward accordingly.The existence of the units and any money that goes with it can be assumed to be a myth.

See also 

Australia's ASIC finds no evidence of 1 MDB's Cayman units 

1MDB has been made aware of an article, dated 10 October 2015, that has been published in the Sarawak Report, an online blog currently banned in Malaysia. This article has published selectively extracted materials and contains serious and unfounded allegations, in a clear attempt to manipulate readers with respect to events that have previously taken place at 1MDB.
1. 1MDB-Petrosaudi
The fund units, owned by 1MDB subsidiary Brazen Sky Limited, were originally valued at US$2.318 billion in September 2012, as the eventual outcome of various equity and murabaha loan investments totalling US$1.83 billion by 1MDB with PetroSaudi between 2009 and 2011. Over the investment horizon, 1MDB has received and reflected in its audited financial statements, cash returns, i.e. approximately US$81 million murabaha profit, and approximately US$263 million dividends from fund unit investments, i.e. a total cash return of approximately US$346 million and a total gain over time of US$488 million (US$2.318 billion less US$1.83 billion).
2. Fund Unit Redemptions
As of 31 March 2014, the fund units were valued at US$2.33 billion.  On 5 November 2014, at the time 1MDB's financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2014 were published,  an amount of approximately US$1.22 billion had been redeemed, in cash, with proceeds being substantially utilised for debt interest payment, working capital and payments to Aabar as refundable deposits for options termination.
A sum of approximately US$1.11 billion in fund units remained, which together with a dividend of approximately US$130 million, equates to the remainder sum of US$1.23 billion described in the notes to 1MDB's accounts.
On 14 and 24 November 2014, approximately US$170 million of the US$1.11 billion fund units were redeemed, in cash, leaving a balance of approximately US$940 million in fund units. On 2 January 2015, i.e. prior to Arul Kanda joining 1MDB, a final redemption of approximately US$940 million was undertaken through a sale of fund units to Aabar, with cash payment being deferred. (Note: Aabar was separately a guarantor of the fund in which the units were invested but by mutual agreement, the redemption was via sale of fund units instead of calling on the guarantee. This fund unit sale agreement was subsequently superceded via the Binding Term Sheet signed between 1MDB and IPIC, the "AA" rated parent of Aabar, on 27 May 2015, upon which a payment of US$1 billion was made by IPIC to 1MDB.)
3. 1MDB President and Group Executive Director Arul Kanda's comment
Whilst Sarawak Report has published a number of alleged 1MDB related documents in the past, which we now know to be stolen and possibly doctored goods, sourced from a convicted criminal, I can confirm that – in this particular case – it appears to have published an authentic 1MDB document, namely minutes of a 12 January 2015 Board meeting. This was the first 1MDB Board meeting I attended, i.e. a week after I joined the company on 5 January 2015.
At the meeting, I stated to the Board, based on my understanding of events that occurred before my time, that the redemption of fund units happened in cash for an amount of US$940 million. However, upon further investigation and verification, it became clear that this was a misunderstanding, which I then clarified to the Board and our shareholder, the Ministry of Finance. This clarification is clearly recorded in subsequent Board minutes and can be verified.
On 13 January 2015, I confirmed via a press statement that the remaining amount of US$1.11 billion had been redeemed, in full. What was unfortunately not made clear, was that the redemptions happened partly in cash and partly through the sale of fund units, with cash payment being deferred. It is this important distinction which caused a misinterpretation of my statement, first during a Business Times interview on 9 February 2015 and subsequently by the Ministry of Finance, in a Parliamentary answer on 12 March 2015.
I have explained in detail the sequence of events to the National Audit Department and to 1MDB's auditors, Deloitte, as part of their thorough and professional review of 1MDB's past transactions. In addition, I have openly and publicly taken full responsibility in June 2015 for the misunderstanding on this matter – i.e. the buck stops with me.
In my capacity as President, I answer to the Board and the shareholder of 1MDB. My strong track record speaks for itself and my only professional agenda is to fix the challenges in 1MDB. There is no need for me to lie or cover-up what has happened in the past, as has been alleged by those who make sensationalist claims to drive their own political agenda. Accordingly, I look forward to being questioned in detail on this matter at the upcoming Public Accounts Committee hearings and for my answers to be a part of the public record, to conclusively put this matter to rest.