Saturday, July 15, 2017

Singapore creates an AML/CTF conundrum for bankers dealing with the Malaysian Government, its Ministry of Finance , PM Najib, and his associates.

by Ganesh Sahathevan




                                                                       Image result for najib finance minister

PM's Signature (And Only His Signature) Was On Every Decision Of 1MDB.Being Minister For Finance every banker in Malaysia or wanting to do business in Malaysia would have sought that signature on any number of approvals. This  includes ANZ,which will soon be seeking Najib's formal approval to sell  its stake in AMBank,

Image result for citiImage result for standard chartered Image result for HSBCImage result for ANZ


by Ganesh Sahathevan

In another "world first" the   Malaysian Government, its Ministry of Finance , PM Najib, are in a position where they continue to maintain that nothing at all was stolen or otherwise misappropriated 
from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund , 1MDB, and its subsidiaries, when even neighbour Singapore, which has beenfitted enormously by being banker to Malaysia,now insists,, in no uncertain terms:

"The main victim in this case is 1MDB

"This case" is of course the 1MDB theft and related matters of money laundering, detailed in excrutiating detail by Singapore's Public Prosecutor, the US Department Of Justice and Switzerland's FINMA. The US DOJ has even provided details of how money stolen from 1MDB was used to buy about ten million dollars worth of diamonds for Australian model Miranda Kerr , and a USD 25 million pink diamond for the PM's wife, Rosmah Mansor.

It is undertsandable that PM Najib, who is also the Minister For Finance , take a "nothing to see" attitude, but what of the bankers who do business in Malaysia, and quite likely the Malaysian Government? How does one deal with a client who is a government that is prepared to deny the theft of billions from its coffers, even as other governments insist that the crime has occurred? How do bank CEOs and chairmen based in the accusing countries account to their own governments and regulators. Citi,ANZ, Standard Chartered and HSBC have long history of doing business in Malaysia and its government. Standard Chartered has already paid 1MDB related fines in Singapore.
END 

Reference

PM's Signature (And Only His Signature) Was On Every Decision Of 1MDB

PM's Signature (And Only His Signature) Was On Every Decision Of 1MDB

All last year Najib and his circle were demanding that Malaysians ‘be patient’ and wait for the findings of the Auditor General’s report into 1MDB to be completed.
When finally it was completed, twelve months later, they declared it an ‘Official Secret’!
To make their meaning as clear as possible, prominent PKR MP, Rafizi Ramli, was arrested on the steps of Parliament last week for threatening to reveal further information about Tabung Haji payments to 1MDB, which they had also handily classed as an ‘Official Secret’.
Therefore, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee report has presented a highly important remaining insight into the scandal, even though MPs were denied a great deal of crucial information with respect to what they identified as a missing US$7 billion (RM28 billion) from the fund.  This is the total figure which 1MDB has invested in mysterious foreign companies, for which they have provided zero financial information either to the PAC or the Auditor General (whose report the MPs HAVE been allowed to see, but not publicise).
The missing amounts are, according to PAC member Tony Pua:
  • The sums of US$700 million and US$330 million, which were misappropriated to Good Star Limited, a company unrelated to the purported 1MDB-Petrosaudi joint venture in 2009 and 2011.
  • US$3.51 billion, which was paid to a British Virgin Islands (BVI) incorporated Aabar Investment PJS Limited “Aabar (BVI)” in the form of collaterals, options termination compensation and further unexplained “top-up security” payments despite obvious doubts over who owns Aabar (BVI).
  • US$940 million worth of “units” which was parked at the Swiss Bank branch of BSI Bank in Singapore.
  • another US$1.56 billion of investments by 1MDB’s wholly-owned foreign subsidiary, 1MDB Global Investments Limited, which also could not be verified by the Auditor-General.
The PAC report detailed how CEO Shahrol Halmi had shockingly defied his Board to go ahead with expensive borrowing and investments such as the PetroSaudi joint venture, which had been specifically vetoed by board resolutions pending further research – all confirmation of course of the concerns which Sarawak Report has extensively reported over the past year.
The PAC committee has therefore recommended that Halmi be criminally investigated.  Furthermore, it has made another crucial set of recommendations, which require the dismantling of an unusual clause governing 1MDB, namely Section 117 – also the abolition of the company’s so-called Advisory Council.

Section 117

The significance of the PAC demand for the removal of the provisions of Section 117 has so far been downplayed, particularly by Najib’s supporters, who have suggested that the report totally exonerated Najib and “proved” he had no responsibility for the disastrous decisions of 1MDB. This could not be further from the truth.
The clause, according to the evidence of the committee, was introduced into the articles governing 1MDB in September 2009, at the time when it was officially converted from its original title and purpose as the Terengganu Investment Authority and re-named 1MDB.
Section 117 transferred total power over the newly fashioned 1MDB into the hands of the Minister of Finance, who is named as the sole shareholder and signatory of the company.  Furthermore, it goes so far as to specifically forbid the normal representation of officials from the Ministry of Finance to sit on the Board of the company, even though it was supposed to be a 100% subsidiary of this department of state.
There could be only one reason for this extraordinary ban against Finance and Treasury officials from participation in the running of 1MDB, and that is that the new Minister in charge (i.e. the sole shareholder and signatory/ the PM himself) wanted to be free of any oversight or interference from departmental experts regarding his decisions over the fund.
This extraordinary provision applies to only one other company controlled by the Ministry of Finance, Sarawak Report has been informed.  And that company is none other than SRC International, which is the other scandal hit enterprise, which Najib also set up under 1MDB and then financed with RM4 billion borrowed from the KWAP pension fund – money that has also been almost totally unaccounted for.
Finance Department officials have confirmed that as a result they had no oversight whatsoever over these companies, which were supposedly public concerns controlled by their department, and which had moreover raised billions in loans that were guaranteed by the Malaysian Government, thanks to letters of commitment signed by the Minister of Finance.
It is really terribly shocking.

Dazzling with ‘big names’

In a clear attempt to side-step concerns about these unusual provisions under Section 117, the Prime Minister/ Finance Minister set up a third tier of ‘governance’ for the company, which was supposed to act as a counter-balance to this deliberate lack of oversight.
This was the so-called Advisory Board of which he was the self-appointed Chairman.
The names on this Advisory Board, consisted of a dazzling array of international bigwigs, with the seeming purpose of over-awing potential critics into silence – they were all Najib’s best political and business contacts from around the world (France’s richest businessman, Berhard Arnhalt; The remarkably wealthy Prime Minister of Qatar; the Head of Mubadala in Abu Dhabi, amongst others).
Who would dare to call into question such a star line up of heavy-weights, all putting their guidance and expertise into the management of Malaysia’s great investment enterprise?  It appears nobody in Malaysia indeed did so.  Except, the PAC report confirmed, this committee of luminaries has never once met!
Only its Chairman, Najib, was therefore in place to give orders, determine investments, sign documents and make decisions.  He had clearly set the whole structure up this way, in order to deliberately to sidestep the normal checks and controls of company management, thereby enabling himself to assume total dictatorial control over the way the billions raised by this fund were spent.
One wonders why?
The consequences of this approach can be very clearly seen, according to the investigations reported by the PAC.  Shahrol Halmi, who had been recruited from the accountancy firm Accenture to head up the fund, when it was originally pulled together by Jho Low on behalf of his friend Najib, knew exactly who was the real boss.
Indeed, when the original Board representing Terengganu (who had put up its future oil revenues as the collateral for lending) protested at reckless and expensive borrowing proposals, Shahrol Halmi just ignored their orders and went ahead without board permission to borrow RM5 billion from AmBank.
That RM5 billion will have cost Malaysia a staggering RM15 billion in total costs by the time it is finally paid back, says the PAC report.  And most of that money was channelled into the company Good Star Limited, which the PAC have now confirmed had nothing whatsoever to do with 1MDB’s joint ventures.

Orders from Najib over-ruled 1MDB Board, thanks to Sec 117

The PAC reports the excuse that Halmi gave them when questioned about this jaw dropping defiance by a Chief Executive against his own Board.  He referred to Section 117, which he explained to PAC members over-ruled the authority of the Board:
“The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found Mr Shahrol to be in violation of the shareholders [decision] not to proceed with publication IMTNs. Mr Shahrol also made a mistake by signing the agreement without any power conferred by the board of directors.
The PAC was informed by Mr Shahrol, he did not follow orders to stop the issuance of RM5 billion Islamic Medium Term Notes and bonds did not follow the instructions of the Board as the power actually lies with the shareholders in accordance with Section 117 of the Articles of TIA Berhad. [Google Translation of PAC report]
There is only one way to interpret this explanation, given that Najib Razak is the only shareholder of the company.
What Halmi was saying was that, under the provisions of this Section 117, he had obeyed the higher authority of the sole shareholder and signatory of the company, rather than the Board.
It means that although the 1MDB Board had told Halmi to halt the plans to borrow RM5 billion, given the ridiculous rates, Najib, the grand new Finance Minister/Prime Minister in charge of the fund, had counter-manded him to take no notice and go ahead anyway.
Halmi, in accordance with the rules of the company, had obeyed the boss who had also recruited him, namely Najib.
There is no other way to interpret Halmi’s reference to Section 117 as his reason for defying the Board, not just on this occasion but on numerous other occasions with respect to the PetroSaudi joint venture in 2009.  For example, he refused to halt the deal until a proper valuation of PetroSaudi was obtained, as had been requested, and he refused to send the money back when Board members discovered USE$700 million had been sent to Good Star Limited, which was unrelated to the Joint Venture.
This is all very clearly spelt out in the report by the PAC and so makes a mockery of attempts to claim that it did not hold the Finance Minister cum Prime Minister totally accountable for this fraud, which was launched just weeks after he had stepped into his new position of power in April 2009.
Interestingly, Halmi was in fact back-dating the existence of these provisions in the articles of 1MDB at the time he made these excuses to the PAC in 2015, because Section 117 was not added to the company’s articles of association until the change-over from its status as the Terengganu fund to 1MDB in September of 2009 – just days before the signing of the PetroSaudi deal, but weeks after Halmi had defied his original Board by borrowing all that money!
Never mind, it just goes to show the naked truth about the way that 1MDB was conceived and run by Najib and his side-kick Jho Low from the very start.  Halmi knew who he was supposed to take his orders from and to hell with the letter of the law – in Malaysia, where the PM had total control such matters could be fixed.
According to reports, Halmi is still telling people that Najib is ‘unshakable’, so he considers himself ‘safe’.
Kings and State to State Partnerships
The technique of ‘fixing’ things by asserting power and grandeur under-pinned the entire strategy of 1MDB.  The PAC has analysed this Jho Low-constructed bluff (already exposed by Sarawak Report).
In short, 1MDB did not just do investment deals, it engaged with powerful and impressive friendly states in ‘government to government’ diplomacy (supposedly), making any questioning or criticism of Najib’s actions appear – well churlish and unpatriotic!
Thus the PetroSaudi deal was described to the 1MDB Board as a crucial state to state venture with none other than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Manager Casey Tan even briefed the Board that the PetroSaudi had been set up in 2000 and personally belonged to King Abdullah.
This was a total lie, just as managers had previously lied that the Abu Dhabi Mubadala fund was investing in Iskandar in May 2009 (which was immediately denied) and later in 2013 lied that Abu Dhabi’s Aabar was investing in a ‘strategic partnership’ in Kuala Lumpur’s so-called Tun Razak Exchange (which remains unbuilt).
Emails obtained by Sarawak Report, sent between 1MDB’s lawyers Wong & Partners and PetroSaudi’s legal team at the time, make totally clear who the beneficial owners and decision makers were on each side of this deal, since the correct details needed to be given to the banks receiving the money:
The decision-makers at 1MDB at the time of the PetroSaudi deal
The decision-makers at 1MDB at the time of the PetroSaudi deal
The Form A sent to JP Morgan about beneficial ownership of the Joint Venture presents solid confirmation:
Do what the boss says
No sign of King Adbullah – just his seventh son, then a jobless ex-pilot
As PAC member Tony Pua, who has seen the secret Auditor General’s Report, has put it:
Dato’ Seri Najib Razak’s signatures are littered all over 1MDB as he was the ultimate decision maker who signed off resolutions to sack 1MDB’s auditors, Ernst & Young and KPMG, to invest US$1.83 billion in the failed Petrosaudi joint venture, to borrow US$6.5 billion of bonds via Goldman Sachs and to overpay for the RM12.1 billion of power assets.
So, what is all this bluff and bluster about the PAC report letting the PM off the hook?Because if Najib had not signed every single transaction of 1MDB, then none of the above could have happened under the rules of the company itself.

No foreign bank statements!

There is a final damning aspect to the evidence of the PAC, which is matched, the report says, by the findings of the Auditor General.  This is the persistent refusal of 1MDB to produce any statements or evidence whatsoever to account for the expenditures of those foreign companies and accounts into which so much of 1MDB’s public money was placed (i.e. US$7 billion).
There can only be one conclusion as to why Arul Kanda spent and entire year pretending he didn’t understand the following simple question: ‘Please show us the bank statements’.
The obvious answer was that he simply does not have them.  And the reason he does not have them is that 1MDB’s money had been deliberately siphoned out through these companies to third parties entirely – they were nothing to do with 1MDB!
This was the reason why Kanda, in his early days in the job last year was forced to fax a forged copy of a bank statement for Brazen Sky account in Singapore to BSI bank, which was supposedly holding a billion dollars for 1MDB.
Kanda asked the bank if the statement was true and (according to a letter from Singapore investigators obtained and published by Sarawak Report) the bank was forced to reply that the information was wrong.  Kanda did not have the correct bank statements!
Likewise, Good Star Limited, which received US$700 million of 1MDB’s original billion ‘investment’, belongs to Jho Low, according to extensive research by Sarawak Report, which Jho Low has never contested.
For the first time we reveal the bank transfer note
For the first time we reveal the bank transfer note

1MDB has no idea what happened to money sent abroad

For this reason the PAC report specifically condemns 1MDB and Shahrol Halmi, who persisted in claiming that Good Star Limited belonged to PetroSaudi, but were never able to produce any documentary evidence that it did.
Neither could 1MDB produce any evidence that the company Aabar Investments PJS Limited (BVI) was linked to the Aabar sovereign wealth fund in later ‘joint ventures’, where than US$3.51 billion was paid in return for a for a loan guarantee of just US$3.5 billion!
What kind of a finance manager was Najib to sign off on a deal like that?  What could have possessed him?  Could he have ever been allowed to do such a thing if any of his tiresome apparatchiks from the Finance Ministry been looking over his shoulder?
Of course, last week The Wall Street Journal published the telling information that no less than US$150 million went from this Aabar Investments PJS (BVI) went straight to the movie production company belonging to Najib’s step-son Riza Aziz in Hollywood.
Now this is one thing (at last) that does start to make perfect sense!
Add to that the remarks of the Swiss head of the Financial Investigation Agency FINMA at the end of last week.  He said:
“we are talking here not about small fry, but what looks like blatant and massive corruption….suspicious cash flows linked to the Malaysian sovereign fund 1MDB. FINMA has carried out investigations into more than 20 banks in connection with these cases, and has opened seven enforcement proceedings … we are not dealing here with shades of grey. The evidence points to clear cases of corruption.” [Mark Branson]
At which point, who in Malaysia can give a shred of credence to the claims by such fellows as Tengku Adnan, Umno secretary-general, that the PAC Report has “proved” that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with the decisions at 1MDB or that he has been some way “slandered”?
And who can believe pathetic ‘Sirul’ Halmi’s sad insistence that nothing wrong or illegal ever happened at 1MDB?
As even Najib’s inner circle are now being quoted saying “someone is going to have to go inside for this”.  No one is taking bets on that someone not being being ‘Sirul’ Halmi!

As Defender Of The Faith ,the Agong has no choice but to act now to have Najib removed and jailed-Otherwise he risks a conflict with his Chief Of Defence Forces, and irrelevance

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Yang di-Pertuan Agong ke-15.png

Muhammad V of Kelantan



There has been much talk recently of PM Najib declaring emergency law so as to remain in power. The newly enacted NSC Act makes it easier for him to do so, but as previously written on this blog, the  NSC Act pits the Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Yang DiPertuan Agong.

The Agong's problems do not end there. He has a duty to defend the Islamic faith, at least by convention.He does at his installation, swear an oath to do so.

He is now faced with a situation where  his prime minister ,and possibly his entire cabinet, have been clearly shown to be involved in stealing from his people, and then laundering that money to conceal the crime and further the theft. That cannot possibly be within the norms and morals of any faith, belief system, or system of values.

Faced with the possibility of his Chief Of Defence Forces and other defence chiefs enforcing martial law,he will have to balance staying aloof from the goings on in his country with his duties as Defender Of The Faith. As previously mentioned, there are constitutional grounds that allow him to act,indeed compel him to act (See references below).

In short, being the Defender Of The Faith in a country where his Islamic faith is increasingly a factor in the daily lives of all adds to the Agong's duties.Given the circumstances, he may not only have to sack his prime minister and cabinet, but also have to place them in custody, using the offices of his Provost Marshall.
END 



References 

Saturday, October 8, 2016


Even PM Najib accepts that there is nothing in law that prevents the Agong from sacking a sitting PM

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These are  the words of PM Najib with regards the Citizens' Declaration presented the Agong:

“In the meeting His Highness took notice of the matter that was brought up by Mahathir. However, the Agong explained to Mahathir that he cannot be involved in what Bersatu is doing.

“This is as the declaration made by Bersatu was not in accordance with the constitution. Any action should be in line with accepted practices via the parliament and electoral system for the rakyat to make their decision,”
The statement is interesting in that Najib sights "accepted practices" and not the Constitution or any other relevant law.In addition , he incorrectly declares the Bersatu declaration "not in accordance with the constitution", when it should be obvious even to him that there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about anyone or group petitioning the Agong.

The matter of "accepted practices" or convention has been discussed before in a previous posting where it has been pointed out that convention in the Malay context demands that the limits of the Agong's powers be not questioned. Hence, Najib's reliance on convention rather than law in defence of his position is curious, to say the least.

END




Reference

Friday, October 7, 2016


Agong can sack a sitting PM, and Conference of Rulers can remove Agong when he fails to do so.



Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Given that Malaysia's Supreme Ruler or Yang DiPertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among its members, it follows that it is the best interest of the sultans that no one person when elected as Agong act in any way that might be detrimental to their collective interest.

In fact, it does appear as if this right to protect , even defend, their collective interest is provided for in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia,which states in Article 38(6)(a):

The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say;
(a) the election or removal from office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the election of the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

There does not appear to be any other provision in the Constitution that limits their discretion.

The 14th and current Yang di-Pertuan Agong , Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah, faces a situation where the exercise of his Constitutional and reserve powers are under intense scrutiny given the 1MDB scandal that implicates his prime minister Najib Razak in theft, money laundering and various other criminal matters that are being investigated in a number of jurisdictions. At stake is the proper governance of his country, and he faces ongoing calls from his people to dismiss his prime minister who has entrenched himself using both political machinery and legislation.The latter has involved the introduction of the National Security Council Act ,which the Conference Of Rulers advised should not be passed without "refinement". In addition, the Agong has been presented with a petition containing 1.3 million signatures imploring him to act.It has been reported that he has refused to consider that petition.

The Agong's refusal has implications for future holders of that office and the Conference Of Rulers as a whole for he oversees both  an erosion of powers and a loss of confidence of  their subjects. 
That loss of confidence will lead to questions about the relevance of the institution of the sultanate ,and surely they must already realize that these questions are in fact being raised. The Conference Of Rulers is clearly in that situation where it has to consider removing the Agong, and perhaps his soon to be appointed successor should he persist  in his predecessor's behaviour, in order to preserve the institution of the sultanate, hereditary rule,and all the privileges that come with it. 

END 

See also 

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

NSC Act pits Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Agong-Might the Agong order the CDF be court-martialled?

Singapore has shown how Najib and Cabinet used SRC to launder money stolen from 1 MDB: Najib's "Saudi Royal" shown to be a shell used in that laundering

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The following paragraph has been extracted from the Statement Of Facts filed by the Attorney General's Department ,Singapore, on 17 July 2017,  in the matter of PP v Yeo Jiawei:

32. The scheme of transactions that was executed included the following transactions in September 

2013. On 4 September 2013, SRC International (Malaysia) Limited (“SRC Malaysia”),15 a 

subsidiary of SRC, received cash traceable to Tanore Finance Corporation. 16 On 5 September 2013, 

SRC Malaysia utilised the moneys by subscribing in approximately US$228.8 million (less of fees) 

worth of securities in Pacific Harbor Global Growth Funds AA4 and AA5 under Pacific Harbor 

Global Growth Fund Limited (“Pacific Harbor”). 17 On 9 September 2013, the same amount was 

transferred by Pacific Harbor, which served as a pass through intermediary, to Affinity Equity 

International Partners Limited (“Affinity”),18 a company beneficially owned by Jho Low’s associate 

Eric Tan. On 10 September 2013, Affinity used these moneys to pay a Bridge Fund-associated bank 

account US$65 million for a 2.8 percent stake in BGA and US$133.4 million pursuant to a “profit 

undertaking” in favor of BGA dated 6 September 2013. These two sums of moneys were, on 11 

September 2013, paid to Brazen Sky purportedly as “dividends” and “capital distribution”.



Remember dears readers that :
a) SRC was a 1MDB subsidiary that was then transferred to the Ministry of Finance

b) Toanore Finance is supposed to be a company owned by or which represents Najib's Saudi donor.The USD 681 Million that was deposited into Najib's account came from and was sent back to Tanore.

c) That the above transactions would have been approved by PM Najib and the Cabinet.As former  Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah says:

“1MDB is under the purview of the Finance Ministry. So the ministry must be responsible. That responsibility is then brought to the Cabinet to get their endorsement to what 1MDB is doing......"

It has taken Singapore to demonstrate the obvious:  That Najib and Cabinet used SRC to launder money stolen from 1 MDB and that  Najib's "Saudi Royal" is really a shell used in that laundering 

END 



References 



28

by Ganesh Sahathevan 





Malaysia's attorney general, Apandi Ali. Photo: AFP


US DOJ

263. The Attorney General of Malaysia publicly stated that he conducted an inquiry into the $681 million in payments. In a press release issued on January 26, 2016,

the Malaysian Attorney General confirmed that, “the sum of USD681 million (RM2.08 billion) [was] transferred into the personal account of [MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1] between 22.03.2013 and 10.04.2013,” and that, “in August 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by [MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1]. . . .” The Malaysian Attorney General ultimately characterized the payment of $681 million as a “personal donation to [MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1] from the Saudi royal family which was given to him without any consideration.” 264. Bank records associated with the Tanore Account show that TAN was the beneficial owner of the Tanore Account, from which the $681,000,000 payments to the account of MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1 were made, and that 1MDB OFFICER 3 was added as an authorized signor on the Tanore Account roughly one day before the first wire of $620,000,000 was sent from the Tanore Account to the account of MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1. 
(TAN is ERIC TAN KIM LOONG)

Switzerland's  FINMA
Falcon also had a client relationship with a young Malaysian businessman with links to individuals in Malaysian government circles. The bank did not verify how this individual had been able to acquire assets of USD 135 million in an extremely short period of time or why a total of USD 1.2 billion was transferred to his accounts at a later date – a transaction which was clearly at variance with the information he had provided when opening the account. Falcon also failed to adequately investigate the commercial background to pass-through transactions amounting to USD 681 million and the repayment six months later of USD 620 million via these accounts despite conflicting evidence. In this context, an internal Falcon email states: "We started this six months ago and now we have to go through with it – somehow"



To be read together with http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/should-not-inner-temple-disbar.html

Friday, July 14, 2017

Revisiting Ahmad Husni's statements on how Najib and the Cabinet oversee 1MDB's operations, and approve all its investments

by Ganesh Sahathevan








It is important to remember that bankers do not simply transfer the monies   of a sovereign wealth fund on the say so of "friends and family". Duly notarized authorization from its  board, if not the persons actually in control of the fund are required for these  types of transactions.

Yet according to Singapore prosecutors this is exactly what Jho Low managed to do in transferring  billions in the name of 1MDB and its former subsidiary SRC.

It is therefore important therefore to recall the words of the former Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said:

“1MDB is under the purview of the Finance Ministry. So the ministry must be responsible. That responsibility is then brought to the Cabinet to get their endorsement to what 1MDB is doing......"

END 

















Wednesday, 3 June 2015 | MYT 11:04 PM

Ahmad Husni: Najib’s approval needed for 1MDB undertakings


PETALING JAYA: The Prime Minister represents the Government, which is why his written approval is needed for any financial deals undertaken by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

“1MDB is government owned. So, in this context, it means that the Prime Minister represents the government. That’s the concept,” Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah (pic) said in a Wednesday 9pm interview on Radio Televisyen Malaysia’s (RTM) Dialog programme.
In responding to a follow-up question posed during the interview, Ahmad Husni said that there was no conflict of interest by having the Prime Minister also holding the Finance Minister portfolio.
“No, there is none,” he answered.
“We have talked about the way forward. Among the steps taken is that we will streamline governance. We are in the process of doing it,” he said.
Ahmad Husni explained that investments such as those in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar Malaysia will take time before profits are seen, with income generated from the first phase of projects expected to come in within two to three years.
Ahmad Husni dismissed reports by certain online media that Cabinet ministers had been “bullied” by the Prime Minister over 1MDB.
“1MDB is under the purview of the Finance Ministry. So the ministry must be responsible. That responsibility is then brought to the Cabinet to get their endorsement to what 1MDB is doing. The issue of bullying does not arise,” he said, adding that the Cabinet acts as one regarding 1MDB.
1MDB’s president and group executive director Arul Kanda Kandasamy said earlier on Wednesday that all RM42bil in alleged debts are accounted for.
He said that the information was fully disclosed in 1MDB’s audited and publicly available accounts from March 31, 2010 to March 31, 2014.
On Wednesday, Bank Negara opened a formal enquiry to examine if there are any contraventions of financial rules and regulations with respect to issues surrounding 1MDB.
The investigation will also entail taking statements from individuals involved in the governance process and obtaining information from other relevant domestic and foreign parties.

Related stories:

Senator Penny Wong born in Malaysia,and born a Malaysian citizen-Has she officially renounced Malaysian citizenship, and can we see proof?

by Ganesh Sahathevan






Penelope Wong Ying Yen, aka Senator Penny Wong, was born in Kota Kinabalu ,State Of Sabah, Federation of Malaysia. Her father Francis Wong is a Malaysian citizen,which makes Wong a Malaysian citizen by birth.


While she moved to Australia in  1976,that would not have caused the loss of her Malaysian citizenship.
Many Malaysians who later in life took up citizenship  of other countries assumed that by doing so Malaysian citizenship was lost  automatically, but this is not the case.

There is ,provided for in the Malaysian Constitution and arising laws a process which requires citizens who wish to renounce their citizenship to make a formal application to do so.It is up to the Malaysian Government to determine if the application should be accepted.

If the Government determines that the application is to be accepted, then the applicant is issued a formal notice of that fact,with a copy of his or her Malaysian birth certificate marked with  words in Malay and/or English  ,"No longer a citizen of Malaysia (paraphrase)".

None of this has ever been provided the public in the case of Penny Wong. Indeed the question has never been put. We are simply expected to accept  that Wong is not a citizen of Malaysia, despite the facts.
END