Wednesday, March 22, 2017

MO1 aka Captain aka Najib Razak: Jho Low's New Year 2017 greeting makes clear the leadership of the criminal enterprise that stole from 1MDB is well known,and known to many.

by Ganesh Sahathevan




The Wall Street Journal has  reported  that "the U.S. is preparing to charge financier Jho Low in Malaysian 1MDB Scandal ".

Part of the WSJ story includes this paragraph.


Weathering the Storm

Jho Low, a Malaysian financier suspected of playing a key role in an alleged looting of state fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, sent friends this New Year's greeting.

“2016 was the Perfect Storm; but the calmness and resolve

of our Captain, led his loyal Sailors whom placed their lives

with utmost trust in his leadership weathered the storm...”

“When the wind could not blow away their joint resilience,

the storm eventually passed, and the Captain simply adjusted

their sails effortlessly and continued their destined journey...”

“The men and women that came out of the storm were not

the same men that walk in. Through struggle, they established

new strengths they never knew they collectively had...”

“The very moment they were brought to their knees, and

their world was about to fall apart; their Captain’s exemplary

leadership guided them to safety
; and through this experience,

they achieve a new level of humility, nobility and higher

intelligence ready to set sail for greater achievements

in 2017 for their people
!”



Given the DOJ civil action in which Najib is obviously referred to as MO1,  it is hard to see who else Jho Low might be referring to when he refers to "our Captain".



“There are all these guys with their arrows out on me. There seems to be a very, very coordinated attempt to say: ‘This young Chinaman, it’s all his fault, he caused the failure of 1MDB and apparently he advised the PM and everything is screwed up now’.....All these guys go round and round and I say: ‘Guys, it’s very simple, there’s a board, who is the shareholder’? ”
“Are you telling me that the ministry, the Finance Minister, who is the Prime Minister — and there are only two to three people in the Finance Ministry that sign off on shareholder resolutions under law — that they just signed without evaluating it?”
The fact that the SMS was sent to a number of people with a simple reference to the "Captain" without further elaboration suggests that the fact of Najib's captaincy  is well known to a not small number. 
What is surprising, actually disturbing, is the tone of the SMS,which suggests that the 1MDB theft is actually part of an ongoing scheme which the thieves (or more accurately pirates) consider a legitimate financial transaction.

END 



Reference






UMNO Youth spinmasters making me 1MDB scapegoat, says Jho Low

KUALA LUMPUR — Businessman Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low, has made a stout defence of his role in 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), saying in an interview with business monthly Euromoney that the attacks against him are “crazy” and “ridiculous”.

April 15
KUALA LUMPUR — Businessman Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low, has made a stout defence of his role in 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), saying in an interview with business monthly Euromoney that the attacks against him are “crazy” and “ridiculous”.
The Hong Kong-based Mr Low, 33, told the magazine in its April edition: “There are so many other people who get away with ridiculous billions and billions worth of projects. But every single time there seems to be a political attack, wow, suddenly Jho is there again.”
In the interview conducted last month in Hong Kong, republished from Euromoney yesterday in Malaysia’s The Edge Financial Daily, Mr Low said he decided to speak out because the 1MDB issue had become ridiculous.
“There are all these guys with their arrows out on me. There seems to be a very, very coordinated attempt to say: ‘This young Chinaman, it’s all his fault, he caused the failure of 1MDB and apparently he advised the PM and everything is screwed up now’,” he was quoted as saying.
The wholly owned Finance Ministry investment vehicle, established in 2009, has recently come under fire for the firm’s allegedly opaque investment decisions and for amassing a reported RM42 billion (S$15.5 billion) debt pile.
The controversy centres on allegations that Mr Low diverted US$700 million (S$951 million) from 1MDB.
In the same interview, Mr Low also blamed the youth wing of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party for making him a scapegoat, and called UMNO leaders a bunch of “spinmasters”.
“All these guys go round and round and I say: ‘Guys, it’s very simple, there’s a board, who is the shareholder’? ”
“Are you telling me that the ministry, the Finance Minister, who is the Prime Minister — and there are only two to three people in the Finance Ministry that sign off on shareholder resolutions under law — that they just signed without evaluating it?”
Mr Low’s comments drew sharp rebuke from UMNO Youth Exco member Ibdillah Ishak, who said that Mr Low should not have accused UMNO of misrepresenting issues concerning the state investment vehicle.
“There is no need to defame UMNO leaders when you are facing such huge problems,” Mr Ibdillah said.
“It is as if he wants to get himself off the hook.”
Echoing UMNO Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin, who said Mr Low must be investigated over his role in 1MDB, Mr Ibdillah urged Prime Minister Najib Razak to expedite the probe on 1MDB and expand this to include Mr Low.
“We cannot wait any longer, this is a public matter ... If any individual is found to have committed a breach of trust, misappropriated public funds and more, they must be punished,” he added.
Mr Low also suggested his high-profile lifestyle was to blame for attacks against him.
“Because there are all these pictures of me and Paris Hilton drinking, then you play to the Bumiputera card, ‘Oh, the Chinaman stole all the money and blew it all on alcohol’.”
He added he did not fear arrest on his return to Malaysia, saying his biggest concern was that documents could be fabricated although he acknowledged he had no proof of such acts.
According to Euromoney, much of the speculation around Mr Low’s involvement in 1MDB relates to his role in its predecessor, the Terengganu Investment Authority, the state fund he devised with the state’s royals that was later taken over by the federal government.
Mr Low also insisted his links to 1MDB were either vicarious through the Middle Eastern investors he advises or informal in the form of casual consultations by the firm’s employees.
Mr Najib, who is chairman of 1MDB’s advisory board, last month ordered the Auditor-General and Public Accounts Committee to investigate 1MDB.
The move did not appease former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is critical of 1MDB and Mr Low’s alleged involvement with the firm. Dr Mahathir has launched high-profile criticism of Mr Najib and his administration over the issue.


.


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

The Low Family: A Billion Dollar Fortune Founded By Dato Low Meng Tak, But Only Larry Low ,His Children & Wife Claim To Be Beneficiaries Of The Family Fortune......

byy Ganesh Sahathevan



This was one of the earlier stories which attempted to explain Jho Low's sudden wealth:

THE Low family fortune was built by its patriarch the late Datuk Low Meng Tak. The family fortune was consolidated in 2008 into a global family trust for estate planning purposes.



The Low Family is extensive;




Yet it is only Larry Low and family who claim to be beneficiaries of the family assets. While it is true that the assets involved are held via different trusts, and while it may be possible that these assets were financed by Larry Low from his personal wealth, built on his entitlement or share of the earnings of the Low Meng Tuck global family trust, it is safe to say that only PM Najib and his loyal deputies believe that fairy tale.
END 


Monday, March 20, 2017

Is Singtel interfering in Australian politics to escape a $330 million ATO tax bill- Singtel Optus Chairman Paul O'Sullivan's letter demanding Turnbull legislate for same sex marriage may be seen as blackmail

by Ganesh Sahathevan 


Image result for optus  singtel

 Singtel Optus Chairman Paul O'Sullivan's letter demanding Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal Party immediately  introduce laws that  would allow same sex marriage coincides with a AUD 330 million tax dispute between Singtel and the ATO.

Perception matters and Singtel's interference in Australian politics may be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of its tax dispute. Disputes of this magnitude involve negotiations at the highest levels of government and the public  position Singtel has taken on a matter that may well cost Turnbull his job cannot but be seen as a form of blackmail.


END 

Reference 





SingTel fighting $330 million tax bill 

from 2001 Optus purchase


Singapore Telecommunications will "vigorously defend" a $326 million tax bill it received last week from the Australian Tax Office, dating back to its takeover of Optus in 2001 for $17.2 billion. 
This is the first time Singtel has revealed the size of the potential bill. Singapore Telecom Australia Investments Pty Ltd first received a tax position paper from ATO in late 2013, and then a Statement of Audit in late 2014.


In 2015, Singtel received a final Statement of Audit Position, and then in July this year it received the outcome of an Independent Review, an internal service offered by the ATO to large corporations.It informed shareholders in it's first quarter results that Singtel has not yet made a provision for the tax bill.
And then on Thursday Singtel noted in its quarterly results it may pay the tax bill from the current financial year's free cash flow. It estimates free cash flow of $1.4 billion, but a footnote added this figure is "excluding payment to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) in respect of the amended assessments received on 2 November 2016 from the determinations on the acquisition financing of Optus".
A spokeswoman confirmed it had received an updated assessment.
"The amended assessments amount to A$326 million, comprising primary tax of A$268 million and interest of A$58 million. We intend to vigorously defend the claim, including pursing all avenues of objection as appropriate," she said. A spokesperson for the ATO declined to comment on Singtel's case, but said it is "resolutely tackling tax avoidance and ensuring multinationals and large companies pay the right amount of tax in Australia". 
"We have been overt that we are actively pursuing intra-company financing and other arrangements multinationals and large companies put in place to avoid paying tax in Australia. The majority of large corporates pay the right amount of tax in Australia and are open and transparent in their dealings with us."


This is the second tax dispute involving the 2001 deal. Last year the ATO won a court case with the company that sold Optus to Singtel, Cable & Wireless, which wanted a $452.45 million tax refund.
The London-based Cable & Wireless sold it's 82 per cent stake in Optus to Singtel for $6.2 billion 15 years ago. It has been working for years to win the funds from the ATO, claiming that of the $586.9 million deposited with ANZ in September 2001 to pay tax to the Commonwealth of Australia, just $134.5 million was legal. 


Crude , no cash: Aramco does not deny that Petronas JV will not involve a cash injection - Transaction is essentially a hybrid barter deal


Crude , no cash: Aramco does not deny that Petronas JV will not involve a cash injection - Transaction is essentially a hybrid barter deal

by Ganesh Sahathevan 








As previously reported the Aramco press release concerning its JV with Petronas did not say that Aramco is investing USD 7 Billion in Malaysia.In fact it implies its participation in the Aramco-Petronas JV will be in crude oil, not cash.

The story was published after a  query was put to Aramco CEO Amin Naseer.Naseer has since been sent the article published, which he has not denied.

It appears then that the Aramco-Petronas JV is essentially a hybrid barter deal,which Aramco and Petronas have described as one where Aramco agrees to supply "up to 70 per cent of the crude feedstock requirements of the refinery. (while) Petronas, on the other hand, will supply natural gas, power and other utilities".
In addition, there appears to be some provision for Aramco to acquire a 50% stake "in selected ventures and assets of the Rapid project within Pengerang Integrated Complex."


Note that the "selected ventures and assets" are not named in the announcement.It would have been a simple matter to name the company or companies that would be acquired, but Aramco and Petronas have chosen not to do so.
Little wonder then that Petronas CEO Wan Zulkiflee chose to air his objections to the deal publicly, 
For that,he is more than likely to be sacked. 

END 

Reference

MAR
19



By Ganesh Sahathevan


“We never take on a project with the view that we have to depend on investors for funding to complete the project,” Wan Zulkiflee told senior editors at a briefing.




While PM Najib provided no evidence of who exactly "almost sabotaged" the Aramco-Petronas JV,we do know that  Petronas CEO and President Datuk Wan Zulkiflee Wan Ariffin himself expressed concerns about the JV just two days before signing, and he did so publicly ,via a press conference that he himself called.The Star reported these matters: 

Wan Zulkiflee expressed surprise at the report of Saudi Aramco pulling out of Rapid when it had not gone into any agreement with the entity from Saudi Arabia.
“How can there be a situation of a party pulling out of something when the party was not part of it in the first place?” he said referring to reports of Saudi Aramco supposedly pulling out of Rapid.
“From day one, we have stated that we are able to fully fund Rapid. We are and will not be dependent on anyone for this project. We are close to 60% complete, costs are within projections and the refinery will be ready by 2019 followed by the petrochemical portion by 2020.”

The above was preceded by an earlier report in The Star,dated 25 February 2017  in which Petronas seemed to be warning off PM Najib and his government.Headlined "Let Petronas Do Its Job", the story included the following statements:

There has been a fair bit of speculation surrounding Aramco inking a deal with Petronas in relation to the latter’s Refinery and Petrochemical Integrated Development or Rapid project in Pengerang, Johor. The latest is that both parties will sign an agreement on Monday during King Salman’s visit to Malaysia.
Petronas has not said anything about any potential deal with Aramco, except that it is always in talks with potential partners, but that any deal inked would have to be on Petronas’ terms. In other words, beneficial to Petronas and not lopsided, as it should be.
Petronas’ president and CEO Datuk Wan Zulkiflee Wan Ariffin recently told editors in Kuala Lumpur that Petronas never takes on projects with the view that it has to depend on investors for funding to complete the project.
That said, partnering Aramco should have its benefits, considering it is not only the company with the vastest oil reserves, but also the most valuable company in the world today. The deal just has to be struck on equally beneficial terms.
.....the O&G resources of the country belong to all Malaysians, and they have to be handled with care.

It does appear then that it was the Petronas CEO himself who was trying to discourage Aramco, and he was not afraid of doing so publicly.

Then there is the matter of the EPF. Najib is reported to have said:

“Some unpatriotic people had spread claims that the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) was almost bankrupt and that the government was unable to pay the salaries of its civil servants.
“The Saudi Arabian government had received this wrong information about our country and thus, were quite doubtful about investing in Malaysia.
“We had to meet them and correct the facts that Malaysia is among the best countries in the world (to invest in). When they were convinced, they finally agreed to invest with us” .
However, Aramco sells its crude to Petronas, and it would,as any oil company would, be interested only in the viability of its client. If otherwise, Shell, ExxonMobil and others would not be investing in say Nigeria. Put in another way, oil companies have long ago learnt to limit their exposure to the oil assets that they deal with, managing to ring-fence these from the problems of the countries they deal with. 
Therefore the matter of EPF would be of interest only if the  EPF is expected to bail-out the RAPID project, for a bail-out is what it would be.If not, the EPF would already be an investor in the project. A bail out should not be unexpected, given that the JV  agreement with Aramco seems not to involve any injection of cash.
END