Friday, May 19, 2017

1 MDB theft : Growing UMNO and BN support for a UN managed International Commission against Impunity to prosecute Najib Administration

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Malaysia AG’s Embarrassing Gaffe


Learned Apandi may want to consider that one day he may be further "annoyed" by a Malaysian 
Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala


UMNO and BN sources in Malaysia  have indicated that they will sponsor  an   UN managed  International Commission against Impunity  to prosecute   members of the Najib Administration for matters relating to the 1MDB theft. This will include PM Najib himself ,and his Attorney General Mohamad Apandi (see reference below).

In pursuing the matter UMNO and BN sources are confident that there is sufficient evidence within Malaysia to at minimum successfully prosecute Najib, his wife Rosmah Mansor and her son Riza Aziz,and their associates.
This includes evidence that will more than easily rebut Najib's "Saudi donation" story that has been relied on by AG Apandi to cover-up what he  knows  to be a theft from 1MDB.

The commission is to be based on the work of  International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, and is considered the most effective and efficient method of excising and removing (cutting and taking away) the entire 1MDB matter out of the hands of Malaysian politicians and enforcement agencies, all of whom have been tainted by the 1MDB theft, as participants , or in the cover-up.


The growing  support  within Najib's own ranks for an international commission has arisen from the realization that the 1MDB theft cannot be covered-up, and that the longer it festers, the more likely it is that the problem will spread to other UMNO and Barisan Nasional members,and their associates (see Sarawak Report story below).
END












We Name More Of The Recipients Of Najib's Stolen Public Money....

We Name More Of The Recipients Of Najib's Stolen Public Money....

One person who features more than once as a lucky recipient of SRC’s stolen funds (thanks to payments from PM Najib Razak) is the property developer Lim Soon Peng.  Together with his son he runs Titijaya Land Berhad, which boasts a number of residential developments.
Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 09.38.52 Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 09.43.56
In July of 2014 Lim received RM91,470 from Najib’s account and then in the following February a hefty RM238,914 – all from the funds stolen from SRC International and initially borrowed from the KWAP public sevants’ pension fund.  So, was Najib buying properties from Mr Lim and if so was he buying them at the market rate?
Or were they up to something else entirely?  Given this was public money, the public have a right to know.  Public servants are often turned out of their accommodation upon retirement and there are very many who would therefore appreciate a roof over their heads from this money saved towards the old age of civil servants, if properties have indeed been bought.
Meanwhile, the recipient list, which includes luxury furnishing shops, diamond sellers and credit card repayments, has long-since undermined Najib’s claim back in 2015 that none of the money was spent on personal uses. It also undermines likely confidence in the present claims of his underlings that the till now unreported cheques, which he presented to UMNO members from the same pot of money, was spent on ‘public’ uses.
Najib’s professional helpers
So, who else was getting gravy from the dish?  Several names spring out, many of which seem linked to election expenses – consultants and companies engaged in the provision of gifts to hand round voters:
“Enjoy this trinket. You might as well, since you paid for it out of your own old age pension” 
Rita Sim
Rita Sim
Najib might have told his grateful electors.
One of these well-paid consultants appears to have been one Rita Sim, the Founder and Director of an outfit called the Centre For Strategic Engagement (CENSE).
Rita and her two female partners appear to have netted a cool million at the start of September 2014 for their work in a direct payment from Najib – RM500,000 on September 1st made out to the Centre and then RM500,000 on September 3rd made out to CENSE Media.
Then the following year there was another tasty payment for a further RM300,000 dated 9th February.
So, what do these three ladies do for people and in particular for Najib, the public has a right to ask?
In her profile, Ms Sim who points out she was named in 2011 as “Woman Super Achiever at the 2nd CMO Asia Awards for Excellence in Marketing and Branding” lists her areas of expertise on the CENSE website as:
The Centre for Strategic Engagement (CENSE) is a private consulting firm established in 2010. We specialise in public policy research with special interest in media, policy & political communications. Our clientele includes Members of Parliament, Ministers, policy-makers and multinationals operating in the region.
The firm says it specialises in:
Branding and marketing, nonpartisan research, analysis, engagement and advisory services. Bespoke strategic planning and implementation (media, business, politics)
To add to a panoply of expertise Sim also currently specialises in Corporate Social Responsibility projects.
The Cense Package:
  • Market Intelligence
  • Surveys and Polls
  • Political Sentiment Analysis
  • Political risk assessment
  • Critical-gap analysis
  • Bespoke socio-political impact studies
  • Up-to-date policy and legislative reports
  • Crisis Management
  • Backbencher engagement
  • Internal and external stakeholder engagement
  • Political and Media Toolkit
  • Individual coaching for political and media engagement
  • Media monitoring, analysis and strategic consultancy
  • Scoping Studies
Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 14.16.23
Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 14.17.05
For the moment Malaysians can only guess what ‘scoping’ or ‘polling’ Ms Sim and her fellow experts were up to on behalf of Najib. However, a clear picture has emerged in one respect, which is that the present Prime Minister appears to have an inexhaustible and extremely expensive media monitoring and manipulation habit.
There appears no end to the numbers of people he is prepared to hire, both publicly and privately, to survey opinion and try to influence it also.  However, as today’s news has shown, it seems he is not happy with what his experts are telling him, because it now appears that a mass exercise is underway to add tens of thousands of new mysterious voters to the electoral lists in opposition constituencies, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible for opposition parties to register voters of their own.
What possible strategic exercise could that be related to, voters might be wondering?
Conference at Le Meridien Hotel.. funded by SRC Money from Najib?
Conference at Le Meridien Hotel.. funded by SRC Money from Najib?

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Rosmah Mansor's role in 1MDB theft emerging : Riza Aziz's lawyers make statements that point finger at Mummy

by Ganesh Sahathevan




In his statement challenging the US Department Of Justice's seizure of assets in his name,Riza Aziz, son of Rosmah Mansor and step-son of PM Najib says via his lawyers: 


Mr Aziz claimed ownership of the entities in his 2012 US tax return, and properly disclosed the transfer of funds ( $94,500,000.00 )from Aabar-BVI to Red Granite Capital Limited. Those funds, according to the Complaint, were reported as a gift under US tax law, and Mr Aziz, after discussion among his accountants and business manager, obtained a letter documenting the gift, signed by the CEO of Aabar (Mohamad Al- Husseiny).


“Nothing in the Complaint alleges that Mr Aziz …. knew that Aabar-BVI was unaffiliated with Aabar or IPIC”

Accepting the above statements, it follows that Riza Aziz honestly believed that he was being gifted some USD 95 million by , ultimately, the Abu Dhabi government  , based on a personal relationship. 
Al- Husseiny's letter that Riza relies on states:

This letter is intended to confirm that the transfer of $94,500,000.00 which consisted of a wire transfer on June 18, 2012 to BSI Bank, Ltd. (account number [XXX]250A) for the benefit of Riza Aziz was intended as a gift. The transfer was made for no consideration and no services were performed or gift received for assets. This was a gratuitous transfer made with detached and disinterested generosity based on our close personal relationship.


The DOJ argues that Riza must have known that the transfer had nothing to do with the IPIC and the government of Abu Dhabi, but Riza insists otherwise.
Taking him at his word, and given that the basis of that "gift" was a "personal relationship", an alternative and one suspects unintended picture emerges; that the  "gift" was granted if not instigated by Riza's mother,Rosmah Mansor, who we have been told time and time again has close personal friendships in the Middle East.These are some of what has been reported in Malaysia:


Rosmah uses Saudi prince’s RM7mil present for charity
Rosmah seeks assistance of Egyptian president’s wife to free M’sian student

Our students safely home thanks to FLOM



At this point is it important, indeed vital , to remember that Riza claims he received close to a hundred million as a gift from IPIC, a sovereign wealth fund(SWF).This is unlike the claim made by his step-father, PM Najib, who claims a "donation" of USD 681 million was given him by the Saudi King or some close relative, in a personal capacity. SWFs are not normally in the habit of making multi-million dollar gifts to private individuals out of love and affection, and in the case of IPIC, reporting obligations to the LSE would have made such generosity very highly unlikely.
Be that as it may, accepting him at his word, it becomes clear that if the government of Abu Dhabi had a personal relationship, it was with Rosmah rather than  Riza. 

Consequently, it follows that if a gift was in fact granted by that government, it would have been to her, or at her instigation.
However, at or around the time of this gift making, the Malaysian Government via 1MDB was making payments to Aabar and IPIC, of some USD 1 billion.As the Opposition MP Tony Pua explains it, these transactions resulted in significant losses to 1MDB.

Therefore, even if that  USD 94.5 million was a gift from Aabar, it was extended during a time when Aabar and IPIC  received over a billion from the Malaysian Government.
If a "personal relationship" was the basis of that gift,then it is more likely than not that  Rosmah's "gift" was actually  a bribe for what was clearly a very profitable series of transactions in IPIC's favour,  This is  the conclusion one would reach based on Riza Aziz's own statement of claim.

1MDB bears the ultimate cost of that bribe, and in that sense it is not different from theft.
END 






References 





How 1MDB's Money Went Missing Through The Aabar Power Purchase Deals

How 1MDB's Money Went 

Missing Through The 

Aabar Power Purchase Deals

Tony Pua MP
Tony Pua MP
While the man responsible for 1MDB’s investment decisions hangs out in New York, DAP’s Tony Pua has queried the emergence of some astonishing figures.
Out of the US$3.5 billion raised by the fund through its so-called power purchase bonds, he says it can now be seen that  1MDB walked away with with a deficit of US$649 million!
The bonds were raised through a co-guarantee by Abu Dhabi’s Aabar subsidiary of the IPIC sovereign wealth fund, which Pua and others have pointed out was totally unnecessary and has turned out to be ruinously costly.
As Pua point out:
“This means that the wholly-owned Ministry of Finance subsidiary ended up with less cash than it had after it took the loan!”
Pua bases his calculations on information that has now become available about what were highly secretive deals to raise money for the ‘development’ fund, which it has now been confirmed is run entirely under the personal management of the Prime Minister.
The power purchase bonds of 2012 were the second of three major money raising ventures by 1MDB, which all ended up losing money rather than driving investments as promised.
PetroSaudi drill boat, but what did 1MDB get from the deal?
PetroSaudi drill boat, but what did 1MDB get from the deal?
The first had been the joint venture with PetroSaudi, into which 1MDB poured some US$1.9 billion, all of which it can now be demonstrated was siphoned away from the public fund.
The Prime Minister cum Finance Minister has nevertheless persisted in maintaining that 1MDB sold out its ‘interest’ in the PetroSaudi venture for a handsome profit to a third party (who has mysteriously remained anonymous) and that the proceeds (alleged to be US$2.3 billion) were stashed in a shadowy and anonymous Cayman Islands fund.
But these claims have proved hollow.
After 1MDB announced under pressure that it had ‘moved the cash’ from the Caymans to an account at BSI bank in Singapore, Sarawak Report published a statement by Singapore regulators that there was in fact no actual money in the account, merely undetermined paper assets.
1MDB have been forced to acknowledge the statement was true.
Indeed, it is perfectly clear from the records obtained by Sarawak Report from PetroSaudi that all the money had long since gone to Jho Low’s company Good Star, the buy out of UBG bank and also to pay off PetroSaudi.

Power purchase “loan sharks”

The money involved in the two separate power purchase deals is an even more staggering amount – two bonds of US$1.75 billion raised a total of US$3.5 billion, allegedly to invest in buying up power stations.
However, Pua has now analysed the records to reveal that so much of the money raised was allegedly spent on payments that by the end of the process 1MDB in fact ended up owing more than the US$3.5 billion raised in the first place.
First, he says 1MDB paid a staggering US$300 million to Goldman Sachs as “certain commissions, fees and expenses” for arranging the bonds.
Second, 1MDB allegedly placed US$1.4 billion as collateral with the Aabar parent fund IPIC (Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund), however this money was never registered as having been received by IPIC, who have now queried Najib about where it is.
Third certain ‘options’ had been granted to Aabar as part of the guarantee deal, which 1MDB then set about terminating at enormous expense. The accounting records show, says Pua, that 1MDB first paid US$993 million (supposedly sourced from the money supposed to be in the Cayman island account).
Then 1MDB paid another US$975 million borrowed from a Deutsche Bank led consortium towards the same end.
To top it all, the MP points out, 1MDB still owes IPIC US$481 million as at 31 Dec 2014.
This adds up to a deficit on the money borrowed of US$649 million.
No wonder, observes Pua, that the beleaguered fund is now struggling under mammoth debts, if it engaged in such “loan shark” borrowing:
“Why would 1MDB borrow so much money, causing RM15.4 billion of indebtedness based on today’s exchange rates, when 1MDB effectively doesn’t get to use any of the funds raised?”
Pua makes plain that he divines the answer to his own question:
“Anyone who can count will be able to see that there are some serious criminal shenanigans which took place with the above bond arrangement.”
he posits and he adds that in his view the recorded option repayments of US$993 million and US$975 million were no more than
“a fraudulent round-tripping exercise”
Of course, the third major example of a massive 1MDB bond deal from which money ‘leaked’ was the 2013 ‘strategic partnership’ plan, again with Aabar, for which Najib Razak hastily raised another US$3 billion just before the last election.
The money was billed as being raised for the Tun Razak Exchange, but by the end of year accounts it was registered that a whopping US$1.4 billion of that had already been spent on unspecified ‘working capital and debt repayments’.
Shortly afterwards, Sarawak Report has pointed out, the mystery US$681 million popped into Najib’s personal account in order, he has admitted, to fund additional (and illegal) election ‘expenses’.
Najib Razak may prefer to jet around on the world stage in his personal jumbo than to provide explanations for these astonishing figures.
In fact, he has appeared to favour political solutions to his economic problems, involving locking up critics on unspecified grounds of ‘sabotage’ as opposed to providing answers, which makes Mr Pua a brave politician, even if he is protected by solid and recorded factual evidence.
See his press release below:
Media Statement by Tony Pua, DAP National Publicity Secretary and Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara in Kuala Lumpur on Monday28 September 2015:
Dato’ Seri Najib Razak must answer if he had authorized the outrageous “loan shark” guarantee arrangement with International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) for 1MDB’s US$3.5 billion of bonds in 2012
Last week, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) shed light on US$993 million which was allegedly paid to International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) by 1MDB to buy back the latter’s options have not been properly accounted for.  The above payment was not reflected in the audited accounts of IPIC.  Instead, IPIC’s books showed that 1MDB still owes an additional US$481 million to the former for the termination of the options as at December 2014.
These options were granted to IPIC’s subsidiary, Aabar Investment PJS in 2012 to acquire up to 49% of its two energy subsidiaries, Powertek Investment Holdings and 1MDB Energy (Langat) Sdn Bhd as part of the condition for the provision of a guarantee by IPIC for US$3.5 billion of 1MDB bonds.
The above exposé brought to surface a puzzling situation where:
  1. 1MDB borrowed US$3.5 billion guaranteed by IPIC.
  1. 1MDB paid approximately US$300 million to Goldman Sachs as “certain commissions, fees and expenses” for arranging the above bonds.[1] [2]
  1. 1MDB placed US$1.4 billion “refundable deposit” as collateral with IPIC.[3]
  1. 1MDB terminated the options granted to IPIC or its subsidiary, Aabar Investment and paid as compensation:
a. US$993 million sourced from the November 2014 US$1.22 billion redemption from 1MDB’s Cayman Island investment.[4]
b. US$975 million borrowed from a Deutsche Bank led consortium[5] [6]
c. 1MDB still owe IPIC US$481 million as at 31 Dec 2014[7]
Based on the above known facts, after deducting (1) US$3.5 billion with (2), (3) and (4), 1MDB actually ended up with a deficit of US$649 million!  This means that the wholly-owned Ministry of Finance subsidiary ended up with less cash than it had after it took the loan!
How absolutely bizarre can you get?  Why would 1MDB borrow so much money, causing RM15.4 billion of indebtedness based on today’s exchange rates, when 1MDB effectively doesn’t get to use any of the funds raised?
Even in the event that 4(a) and 4(b) was a fraudulent round-tripping exercise as I had questioned in my statement last week, removing the US$975 million Deutsche Bank loan from the equation does not make the situation much prettier.
It would only mean that although 1MDB borrowed US$3.5 billion, it had effectively access to only US$326 million or less than 10% of the funds raised.  Anyone who can count will be able to see that there are some serious criminal shenanigans which took place with the above bond arrangement.
The question now is whether the Prime Minister, who is also the Finance Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak gave his written approval for the above outrageous loan transaction, as required under 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A).  Clause 117 of the M&A dictates that the Prime Minister must give his “written approval” for any of 1MDB’s deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.
This includes “any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the company, national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia”.
If Dato’ Seri Najib Razak did not provide the written approval for the above bond issuance, then the Board of Directors of 1MDB must be taken to task for breaching the mandate given to them.  
However, if the Prime Minister has granted his written approval, he must immediately explain to the nation why he agreed to such unbelievably stupid and dumbfounding terms of the US$3.5 billion bond issues which have contributed in substantially to the financial crisis in 1MDB today.
Tony Pua


Tuesday, May 16, 2017

1MDB borrowings may almost all be illegal, but will Najib accept blame or will he have Johari Ghani take the fall?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The Malaysian Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 which regulates the issuance of Malaysian Government guarantees,states,among other things:

Restriction on borrowing powers of body corporate so long as guarantee outstanding
6. So long as the Government shall continue liable under any guarantee given under this Act in respect of any sums raised by a body corporate, the body corporate shall not except with the consent of the Minister exercise any other power to borrow possessed by it.



Now,according to information put out by 1MDB in 2014,the Malaysian Government explicitly guaranteed two loans, a RM 5 Billion Medium Term Islamic Note issue, and a RM 800 Million term loan.
It appears that all other borrowing came after that, but it is not clear if 1MDB had obtained government approval to raise those loans. Recall that PM Najib has declared that he had nothing to do with 1MDB,except as some sort of absentee overseer.
However, Malaysia has two finance ministers, and therefore ,the blame must fall on the Second Finance Minister , Johari Ghani.Of course, he may want to blame any number of his predecessors, but he cannot , as he did recently with the IPIC matter, claim that he has nothing to do with any of it.

All this in addition to the problem of  dealings with IPIC breaching the External Loans Act 1963.






END


References




Wednesday, 23 April 2014 | MYT 12:00 AM

Bulk of 1MDB loans guaranteed by Govt


PETALING JAYA: More than two-thirds of 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s (1MDB) total borrowings of RM36.25bil are supported by guarantees either from the Government, the company itself, which is entirely owned by the Minister of Finance Inc (MoF Inc), or backed by its partners from Abu Dhabi.

The fund’s latest financial accounts ending March 31, 2013 viewed by StarBiz showed that of the total borrowings, a total of RM28.22bil of its loans and bonds were secured.
Interestingly, 1MDB’s only unsecured loan of US$3bil (RM9.9bil) came with a “letter of comfort” from its shareholder - MoF Inc.
This amount was raised by its subsidiary, 1MDB Global Investments Ltd, and the proceeds are to be used as seed capital for the development of the Tun Razak Exchange project along Jalan Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur.
The interest on the unsecured private debt securities of US$3bil is at 4.4% per annum, which surprisingly is lower than the rates charged on some of the loans that were guaranteed by the Government.
Generally, the interest rates on the loans backed by guarantees were between 4.04% and about 6%. For papers that are backed by assets of 1MDB such as its land, the interest rates that the market charges the fund is higher at between 7% and 8%.
For instance, a RM330mil redeemable bond that had been issued with maturity periods between 6.5 and 13 years and secured against the assets and properties of 1MDB carried the highest cost of funds, ranging between 7.1% and 8.35%.
The biggest loan that is guaranteed by the federal government is the maiden RM5bil Islamic medium-term notes that were raised when the fund started in 2009. The 30-year bond issue was priced at an annual rate of 5.75%, a level considered high for a Government-guaranteed bond.
The only other secured loan that is fully guaranteed by the Government is an RM800mil term loan with a tenure of 10 years maturing in 2022.
Repayment of the principal is over 14 instalments beginning April 2016 with interest charged on a half-yearly basis at 4.04% per year.
As to the corporate guarantee issued by companies from Abu Dhabi, it is mainly for the US-dollar debt papers that 1MDB had taken to purchase power plants from the Tanjong and Genting groups.
International Petroleum Investment Co PJSC (IPIC), which is an investment company of the Abu Dhabi Government, had guaranteed US-dollar debt papers to the tune of US$3.5bil to help 1MDB fund the purchase of the power plants.
In return for this corporate guarantee from IPIC, 1MDB has given a 10-year option to Aabar Investment PJS to acquire up to a 49% equity interest in both the power plants.
There is a refundable deposit held aside as collateral for the guarantee by IPIC and part of 1MDB’s strategy to list its energy assets, which is targeted within the next one year.
The term loans taken by 1MDB to purchase the power plants are expensive, as they are charged at the cost of funds plus a margin of 2% per year that is payable at intervals of three months.
To buy the Tanjong group’s power plant, 1MDB had taken up a term loan of RM6.17bil, while the syndicated bridging loan to part-finance the Genting group’s power-generation unit was RM607.52mil.
This is also guaranteed by the company with interest payable on a quarterly basis at the cost of funds plus a margin of 2% per year.


7

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The 4th of June 2015 was the date by which the Government of Malaysia (GOM) said the UAE's  International Petroleum Investment Company  (IPIC) would settle its debt of approximately USD 1 billion  owed to a consortium led by Deutsche Bank.

Recall however that this  debt deal was announced without it being deliberated by Parliament.Subsequently it does not look like it has been  gazzetted, as required by Malaysia's  External Loans Act 1963.

Prima facie it does appear as if the GOM is not allowed by its own laws to accept funding in any form from IPIC,or from anyone else for that  matter , unless duly authorized by Parliament. For IPIC this means that even if that USD 1 billion has been payed over,whatever the GOM has promised pursuant to the deal may be ruled  illegal, and IPIC may not get anything in return.

The relevant legislation is provided below for reference,and readers are reminded that these rules are in place to ensure that government spending and borrowing is properly regulated,and politicians are restrained from driving  the country off a fiscal cliff.



END






AUTHORITY TO BORROW Power to raise external loans, and application of sums raised 



2. (1) The Minister (that is to say, the Minister for the time being charged with responsibility for finance) may from time to time raise loans outside Malaysia— (a) for the purposes of the Federal Development Fund or some one or more of those purposes; or (b) for the repayment or amortization of loans raised outside Malaysia, whether under this section or not.


(3) The sums raised under this section shall not exceed the sum specified from time to time by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order published in the Gazette and such order shall as soon as possible after its publication be laid by the Minister before the Dewan Rakyat; and in applying this subsection sums raised in a currency other than ringgit shall be converted into ringgit as at the day when the amount to be raised is determined and by the use of such rate of exchange as the Governor of Bank Negara may certify to be then appropriate



(4) Subsections (1), (1A) and (2) shall authorize the Minister to include among the terms and conditions of any external loan provisions for exemptions from taxes or for exempting from exchange control the debt charges or any description of debt charges in respect of an externalloan; and the Minister shall by order make such provision as he considers necessary to give effect to any such exemption from tax or from exchange control, and any such order shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any written law relating to the tax, or to exchange control, as the case may be.


(6) All debt charges in respect of any external loan shall be charged on the Federal Consolidated Fund (as provided by Article 98 of the Federal Constitution), and subsections (1), (1A) and (2) have effect subject to that Article. (7) In this section “debt charges” includes interest, sinking fund charges, the repayment or amortization of debt, and all expenditure in connection with the raising of loans and the service and redemption of debt created thereby