KUALA LUMPUR – The high court was today told that it is incorrect for the prosecution to say Datuk Seri Najib Razak had direct control over 1Malaysia Development Bhd, allowing him to exercise powers that allegedly led to the fund’s money making its way into his personal bank accounts.
Lawyer Tania Scivetti, representing the former prime minister, said based on the affidavits of senior assistant commissioner R. Rajagopal and superintendent Foo Wei Min regarding the money trail from 1MDB to Najib’s accounts, there is no documentary evidence that the transfers were done based on the Pekan MP’s instructions.
“Rajagopal wrongly interpreted Article 117 of the memorandum and articles of association (M&A), wherein he averred that all business decisions made by the 1MDB board of directors having financial implications must be referred to and approved by Najib.
“He also did not exhibit any written approval where Najib exercised his powers pursuant to Article 117 of the M&A, nor did he state that the former prime minister invoked his powers under Article 117(c) of the M&A (to cause the transfers),” she said during her submission in the government-linked forfeiture suit against Najib and 17 others before judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan.
Scivetti argued that the affidavits by the two investigating officers merely disclosed the movement of monies deposited into and transferred out of Najib’s accounts, and that the mere setting out of the said movement is not sufficient to prove that the seized properties were from unlawful activity.
“Foo, in his affidavit, averred that during investigations, he applied the ‘first in, first out’ (FIFO) method on Najib’s Ambank account number ending with 9694, and found that apart from utilising it for personal use, Najib used and transferred the money into his own Ambank account number ending with1880, (and the accounts of) 32 political parties, 131 companies and 60 individuals.
“Again, there is no evidence of the alleged movement of monies from 1MDB into any purported accounts of Good Star Ltd, Aabar Investments PJS and Tanore Finance Corp to even warrant Foo doing a FIFO analysis.”
Citing Foo’s affidavit, Scivetti said there is no nexus between the alleged 1MDB funds in Najib’s Ambank accounts and the luxury watches and jewellery seized.
“Foo said based on his investigations, the foreign companies transferred the funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB into the accounts of several foreign companies, and these illegal monies were then utilised for the purchase of luxurious handbags and watches.
“But, there was no evidence furnished by Foo to show the link between the watches and the funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB. Likewise, there were no receipts to link the seized watches and jewellery with the bank statement by Foo.
“Therefore, there is no evidence at all before this court that the seized properties were proceeds of unlawful activity.”
In her closing submission, Scivetti said due to the inefficiency of the evidence, the forfeiture application ought to be dismissed.
The hearing before Zaini will resume on May 7.
On May 8, 2019, the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed a notice of forfeiture for hundreds of items, including branded handbags and 27 vehicles seized from Najib, his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, their three children, and several individuals and companies, said to be linked to 1MDB.
In addition, funds amounting to more than RM18 million in several accounts with Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd, Al-Rajhi Bank Bhd, Malayan Banking Bhd, CIMB Bank Bhd, RHB Bank Bhd, Public Bank Bhd, AmBank Bhd and Hong Leong Bank Bhd were frozen between August 16, 2018 and March 11, 2019.
Najib is named as the first respondent, followed by Rosmah, Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, Nor Ashman Razak Mohd Najib, Nooryana Najwa Mohd Najib, Mohd Kyizzad Mesran, Senijauhar Sdn Bhd, Aiman Ruslan, Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia, Yayasan Semesta, Yayasan Mustika Kasih, Rembulan Kembara Sdn Bhd, Goh Gaik Ewe, Ng, Lim, Kee Kok Thiam, Tan Vern Tact and Geh Choh Hun.
The application was filed on the grounds that the prosecution, acting under Section 56(1), read together with Section 376, of the Criminal Procedure Code, is satisfied that the items seized between May 17, 2018 and March 11, 2019 were related to an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, or as the result of illegal activities involving the respondents. – Bernama, April 23, 2021
