Najib’s Ministers have been very busy indulging in sophistry, prevarication, obfuscation and downright evasion instead of being true and frank about the RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” global financial scandals

Malaysian Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Ministers have been very  busy indulging in sophistry, prevarication, obfuscation and downright evasion instead of being true and frank about the RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion global financial scandals.

It would be difficult to find a  denser statement than the one made by the Communications and Multimedia Minister, Datuk Salleh Said Keruak that the Wall Street Journal cannot convince Malaysians if it does not reveal the sources of its stories.

In fact, WSJ must thank Salleh for giving greater publicity to its latest report about Najib’s stepson Riza Aziz’s purchase of a RM137 million property in London is now part of the 1MDB probe by international investigators.

Salleh cannot be more wrong when he suggested that WSJ reports have no credibility unless they reveal the sources of its stories, as it is the Prime Minister and his ministers who have been   haemorrhaging from a credibility crisis since the 1MDB global scandal burst on the global scene more than a year ago, till today there is considerable truth in the claim that “For foreign media, Malaysia now synonymous with kleptocracy”.

What commands attention is the fact that despite the avalanche of foreign media reports about Najib’s twin mega scandals – RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal –  neither Prime Minister Najib nor 1MDB dared to sue anyone of these publications for their mountain of revelations for more than a year.

It is now  some ten months since Salleh had abused his Ministerial powers to block access by Malaysians to the whistle-blowing website, Sarawak Report, but  this had not prevented the website from continuing its exposes of Najib’s twin mega scandals.

Can Salleh cite the instances of Sarawak Report website exposes for over a year about Najib’s twin mega scandals which are false or untrue?

 Herein lies the answer  as to who does not have credibility, whether locally or internationally.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 May 2016, 11:06 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians should speak up to oppose Najib’s plan to turn Malaysia into a national prison where critics and opponents of the Prime Minister and Government are prohibited from travelling freely overseas

Yesterday, I had asked whether there will be any  Minister who will  resign on a matter of principle if the Cabinet today  is not prepared to countermand the arbitrary and undemocratic ban on Bersih Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah and DAP National Publicity Secretary and MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua from free travel overseas.

I have not heard of any news that any Minister or Deputy Minister is resigning his or her post in protest against such lurch towards undemocratic and arbitrary practices which have so far been  the hallmark of communist and closed societies, representing a major and fundamental difference with democratic and open societies.

Is Malaysia an open and democratic society or has it regressed to become an autocratic and closed society like the North Korean communist regime?

This is a policy question which should involve every Minister and Deputy Minister in view of the “hair-raising” undemocratic and arbitrary decisions to bar critics  and opponents of the Najib government like Maria Chin and Tony Pua from free travel overseas.

The Malaysian Parliament itself has become a farce if MPs like Tony Pua and civil society leaders like Maria Chin could be denied their fundamental and democratic right to travel freely overseas.

Malaysians should speak up to oppose Najib’s plan to turn Malaysia into a national prison where critics and opponents of the Prime Minister and Government are prohibited from travelling freely overseas.

All Barisan Nasional Ministers and Deputy Ministers, including the Deputy Home Minister, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed must be told in no uncertain terms that the issuance of a passport is a fundamental right conferred by Malaysian Constitution, and not just a privilege which is subject to arbitrary denial or withdrawal, depending on the whims and fancies of the powers-that-be.

Suhakam should give the entire Cabinet a primer on human and constitutional rights of Malaysians, as the Cabinet seems to be one of the bodies in the country which is woefully ignorant about the Malaysian Constitution and human rights.

(Speech at the DAP Pekan Nenas anniversary dinner at Pekan Nenas, Johore on Friday, 20th May 2016 at 10.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 May 2016, 2:03 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMNO/BN can only be defeated in the Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections if there is a “game changer” giving the two by-elections unprecedented national significance and importance

After the 11th Sarawak state general election on May 7, the country is poised for the two Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections next month.

Everybody’s first option is to have a one-to-one contest with  UMNO/BN in the two by-elections, but this may not be a feasible or even the best political choice.

I have said that although the inability of Pakatan Harapan to campaign as one united team was a cause of great disappointment not only in Sarawak but also in  Malaysia, the results of the Sarawak state general election showed that the multi-cornered contests involving Pakatan Harapan parties had not  materially affected the outcome of the state election results.

Regardless of whether Pakatan Harapan had been able to present an united front, the results of the 11th  Sarawak state  general election results would have remained largely the same – Adenan Satam as Chief Minister of Sarawak, Barisan Nasional Sarawak forming the Sarawak state government with continuing two-thirds State Assembly majority and the question to be decided on the May 7 polling day was  whether there could be a strong, effective and principled Opposition grouping in the Sarawak State Assembly.

In the last Sarawak State General election in 2011, Barisan Nasional Sarawak lost 16 out of total of 71 state assembly seats.

From the results of the 2016 Sarawak state general elections, out of the expanded 82 state assembly seats in the Sarawak State Assembly, Pakatan Harapan would have difficulty to win a total of 16 seats even if Pakatan Harapan parties had been able to present an united front.

There are two state assembly seats which the Barisan Nasional won by split Opposition votes winning by  a minority vote – Meluan where the BN candidate won with 37.4 of the total votes polled and Ngemah where the BN candidate won with 46.1 per cent of the total votes cast. But the beneficiaries would not be DAP or PKR but the independent candidates of both constituencies.

There were four constituencies where Pakatan Harapan were within striking distance of victory – two for DAP, viz Tasik Biru and Mambong for DAP;  Teluk Usan and Marudi for PKR. But even if Pakatan Harapan had been able to win these four seats, Pakatan Harapan total in the Sarawak State Assembly would not have reached 16.

The Opposition has taken the “one to one” route before, and the best result the Opposition achieved in Malaysian electoral history was by Pakatan Rakyat in the 13th General Election in May 2013, where Datuk Najib Razak became the first minority Prime Minister winning only 47% of the popular votes cast but with 60 per cent of the parliamentary seats.   Pakatan Rakyat’s score was  winning 89 out of the 222 parliamentary seats.

It was in the 13th General Election that PAS candidate secured 18,296 votes (or 48.6% of the votes cast) as against 18,695 votes for the UMNO candidate, losing by a water-thin majority of 399 votes; and in Kuala Kangsar, the PAS candidate also came very close to victory, polling 13,136 votes against UMNO’s 14,218 votes (or  46.6% of the votes cast in a three-cornered contest), losing by a majority of 1,082.

However the votes won by the PAS candidates in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar in the 13th General Elections on May 5, 2013 were the highest ever achieved by PAS candidates, because they were standing as Pakatan Rakyat and not just PAS candidates.

In the forthcoming by-elections for both Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar, in a one-to-one contest with UMNO/BN, the PAS candidates in both constituencies cannot win higher votes but only lower votes as not only non-Malay voters but a sizable number of Malay voters will not vote for PAS because PAS had caused the disintegration of Pakatan Rakyat.

The election results for the PAS candidates in the 2004 General Election would be a more accurate reflection of PAS’ actual strength in these two constituencies  – in Sungai Besar, securing 7,988 votes against UMNO’s 15,337 – losing by a huge majority of 7,349 votes or PAS securing 33.1% per cent of the votes cast; in Kuala Kangsar, lost by 5,557 votes by securing 5,748 votes as against the UMNO candidate who won 11,305 votes (or PAS securing 32,9% of the total votes cast).

As the “one to one” route had been maximised in the 2013 General Election, UMNO/BN can only be  defeated in the Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections if there is a “game changer” giving the two by-elections unprecedented national significance and importance.

Is  such a “game changer” available?

I think this is to be found in  Najib’s twin mega scandals, the RM50-55 billion 1MDB scandal and his RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal.

Najib’s twin mega scandals had no traction in the recent Sarawak state general election because the “Adenan effect” was more potent – just like the “Pak Lah effect” in the 2004 General Election – apart from the difficulty in understanding the maze and complexities of the 1MDB and “donation” scandals, which seem to be quite distant and remote  issues to the daily concerns of the Sarawakian voters.

Will the voters of Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar also find Najib’s twin mega scandals complex and remote subjects of little concern to them or is it possible for Najib’s twin mega scandals to have traction with the voters in the two by-elections, in view of their  national and even international significance?

This answer will decide whether there is a “game changer” for the two parliamentary by-elections which have the makings of defeating UMNO/BN – in which case, whether the by-election is a “one to one” or a multi-cornered contest becomes a secondary issue.

(Speech at the Johor Jaya DAP anniversary dinner in Johor Baru on Friday, 20th May 2016 at 8.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 May 2016, 12:42 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Malaysian Parliament one-sided and partial where Ministers and senior government leaders like PAC Chairman cannot be referred to Committee of Privileges for lying and the Speaker only a “yes men” to such breaches of parliamentary privileges?

Is the Malaysian Parliament one-sided and partial where Ministers and senior government leaders like Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman cannot be referred to the Committee of Privileges for lying and the Speaker only a “yes man” to such breaches of parliamentary privileges?

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Azalina Othman had committed a double contempt of Parliament when:

•	firstly, she lied when replying to the DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng on Monday that PAC members were informed about the deleted lines from the PAC Report on 1MDB because of correspondence from Bank Negara on April 6 that its information was “confidential for the purpose of intelligence only and not for court usage or public report”; and

•	secondly, when she defended her first lie with another lie by claiming that DAP MP for PJ Utara and PAC member Tony Pua’s statement that the PAC Chairman, Datuk Hasan Arifin had “never at any point of time communicated with PAC members on any developments subsequent to the meeting on April 4” before the PAC Report on 1MDB was presented to Parliament on April 7, 2016 was “untrue and without any basis”.

In their joint statement in Parliament on Thursday, the Deputy Chairman of PAC, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (MP – Kepong) and the four opposition PAC members have confirmed that they had never been informed of any Bank Negara correspondence of April 6 before the tabling of the PAC Report on 1MDB on April 7.

The PAC Chairman Hasan Arifin has also committed a grave breach of parliamentary privilege in tampering with the PAC report on 1MDB.

This is the first time I agree with Perkasa bureau for integrity, anti-corruption and abuse of power which argued that the words in the PAC final report  deleted unilaterally and arbitrarily  by Hasan touched on a major issue –the “original sin” of the 1MDB  global financial scandal on the identity of the owner of the company that 1MDB diverted billions of ringgit from its supposed joint venture investment with Saudi firm PetroSaudi International.

The deleted sentence referred to the disclosure from Bank Negara that Good Star’s owner is not a PetroSaudi but a private individual.

Shouldn’t action be taken against Hasan Arifin for the grave breach of parliamentary privilege as PAC Chairman in unilaterally and arbitrarily tampering with the  PAC Report on 1MDB as agreed by the final PAC meeting of April 4?

Or  are Parliament  and the Speaker “blind, mute and deaf” to Azalina’s double contempt of Parliament and Hasan Arifin’s grave breach of parliamentary privilege in unilaterally and arbitrarily tampering with the PAC Report on 1MDB, because Parliament in Malaysia is one-sided and partial and no Minister or senior  government leader like the PAC Chairman can be referred to the Committee of Privileges like lying and other breaches of parliamentary privileges?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 May 2016, 10:19 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Puad Zarkashi has let the cat out  of the bag – the obsession of Najib and  UMNO leaders about the 1MDB and “donation” scandals which have catapulted Malaysia to world’s top nations associated with global corruption

The Director-General of Department of Special Affairs (Jasa), Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi has let the cat out of the bag – that despite all the show and pretence put up by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that all the problems created by his twin mega scandals had been resolved, and that the country must move on, the nation’s leadership are still haunted and hounded by the 1MDB and “donation” global financial scandals and could not move on!

This is why the head of one of the propaganda units of government had to conduct a double-speak  “Veracity Tour” to meet Malay students abroad  to “explain current issues” – or to be more exact,  a “brainwash tour” to mislead Malay students overseas about what is happening in the country.

This is why five months after Najib announced to the world that his twin mega scandals were “history” in his 2016 New Year Eve message, and a month after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on 1MDB, which only touched on the “tip of the iceberg” of the 1MDB scandal but which Najib hailed as vindication for his premiership, Puad had to embark on a world-wide “veracity tour” to “brainwash” Malay students because the credibility of Najib and his administration was hovering near the zero level!

Unfortunately, Puad is so used to hard and blatant propaganda among UMNO crowds,  silenced and compromised by the distribution of various “goodies” at these brain-washing sessions, that he has lost the ability to discern the importance of showing greater finesse and discretion when dealing with more questioning minds  among Malay students overseas.

This was why Puad could trot out such arrant nonsense about Najib’s twin mega scandals to Malay students in Canberra, claiming that Najib had told UMNO leaders when the Wall Street Journal reported the expose in early July last year  that he had “Bank Negara documents” to  approve the transfer the money (RM2.6 billion) into his personal accounts and that he had discussed it with the Bank Negara governor.

According to Puad, Najib denied the money originated from 1MDB and told UMNO leaders that the money was from the Saudi King (Raja Saudi) to “combat the Islamic State, and secondly, to help in other places such as in Palestine and others”.

If it was so simple and straightforward, why didn’t Najib explain it to the public and the world in July last year instead of equivocating to evade accountability and responsibility, and even now, unable to come straight out in public to declare that the version  told by Puad in Canberra was the true one!

If Najib had Bank Negara documents which approved the deposit of  RM2.6 billion in his personal banking accounts, why is Najib unable to show them in the past 11 months since the Wall Street Journal report?

If the RM2.6 billion donation had come from the Saudi King, why can’t he produce documentation to prove it?

Can Najib produce these documents now?

The 1MDB and “donation” global financial scandals are already worthy candidates for the Guinness Book of Records for the many “holes” in the saga of the Najib government to present them as ordinary and  legitimate business transactions, but Puad has done the virtual impossibility of adding more “holes” to the sorry tale of  Najib’s twin mega scandals.

This is the first time that an UMNO leader is claiming that the RM2.6 billion donation was from the Saudi King personally. Previously, the reference was donation from Saudi princes.

Which is which and who is who?

There had been a long and tortured history of the twists and turns about the donor or donors for the RM2.6 billion “donation” deposited into Najib’s personal banking accounts, and Puad has provided the latest “twist and turn” by naming the Saudi King himself.

The history of the twist-and-turn about the donor or donors of the billions in Najib’s personal banking accounts include the following:

•	On August 11, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said the donation was from a “brotherly nation” which wanted to see certain parties win the 13th general election because they were friendly to them.

•	Four days later, Umno Kuantan division chief Datuk Seri Wan Adnan Wan Mamat said the RM2.6 billion was from Saudi Arabia as a form of appreciation of Malaysia “championing Islam” and fighting militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).

•	But on August 22, Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said the donation came from their “Muslim friends in the Middle East” to help Umno fight DAP in the 14th general election, as the party was funded by Jews.

•	Later that same day, Zahid said he met the donors’ representatives who informed him that the funds was in appreciation for the government’s efforts in countering terrorism, and to help Barisan Nasional (BN) maintain Malaysia’s status as a Sunni country.

•	After the new Attorney-General’s no-further-action decision on Najib, however, the BBC reported an unnamed Saudi source as saying that the money was donated to help the prime minister win GE13 and counter potential Muslim Brotherhood influence in Malaysia.

A top howler among the reasons given for the RM2.6 billion “donation” deposited into Najib’s personal banking accounts in March 2013 was the reason that the money was given to combat the Islamic State, not just because  Islamic State only came into existence in mid-2014 while the RM2.6 billion donation was made in March 2013.

Furthermore, if it was true that the RM2.6 billion deposited into Najib’s personal bank account allegedly originated from Saudi Arabia was in appreciation for Malaysia’s efforts in combating the Islamic State (IS), then Najib would not have sang the praises for IS or its predecessor at the time, ISIL or ISIS, at the 20th anniversary dinner of UMNO Cheras Branch on June 24, 2014, calling on UMNO members to emulate the bravery of the ISIL/ISIS terrorists, declaring:

“…when someone dares to fight to his death, he can even defeat a much bigger team. Whether we agree or not is another matter, the group ISIL with the strength of just 1,300 people, can defeat an Iraqi army of 30,000 soldiers, until four, five generals with three, four stars run for their lives, jump out of window at night.”

Najib made that speech on June 24, 2014, a week before ISIS declared the creation of a caliphate and changed its name to Islamic State (IS).

But we must thank Puad, for he has reminded Malaysians that whatever the acrobatics and histrionics, the obsession of Najib and UMNO leaders are Najib’s twin mega scandals which have catapulted Malaysia to be among the world’s top nations associated with global corruption.

Furthermore, the two questions which had led me to visit 130 Parliamentary constituencies in the six months I was suspended from Parliament, remain powerfully relevant and pertinent, which Najib cannot escape from answering: Where the astronomical sums of money in Najijb’s twin mega scandals came from, and where they have gone to?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 May 2016, 2:54 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tunisian Islamists Al Nahda move to separate politics, religion

Gulf News

Reuters

May 23, 2016

Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Al Nahda was able to survive in Tunisia despite initial conflict with secularists

Tunis: Tunisia’s Islamist party Al Nahda will separate its political and religious work, its chief said on Friday, moving away from its tradition of political Islam.

Al Nahda was the first Islamist party to come to power in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions and it took part in the first government coalition after the overthrow of Tunisia’s autocratic leader Zine Al Abedin Bin Ali.

It won the first post-uprising election by appealing to many Tunisians who saw its Islamist identity as an antidote to the years of corruption and repression under the Bin Ali government in one of the region’s most secular nations.

Free elections, a new constitution and a compromise politics between secular and Islamist parties have helped Tunisia avoid the turmoil seen in several other Arab nations.

“Al Nahda has changed from an ideological movement engaged in the struggle for identity, to a protest movement against the authoritarian regime, and now to a national democratic party,” Ghannouchi told supporters at a rally. “We must keep religion far from political struggles.”

Analysts said Al Nahda’s reform appeared to try to distinguish itself in a region where political Islam has suffered setbacks, and also to prepare for local elections next year and presidential run in 2019.

Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that was toppled by the Egyptian army in 2013 and isolated from political activity, Al Nahda was able to survive despite initial conflict with secularists with whom it eventually shared power.

“Al Nahda benefited and learnt from the regional changes after the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and understood well that there was no future in political Islam,” analyst Jamel Arfaoui said.

“Al Nahda succeeded in shaping a new image for Islamists abroad, but the question remains will it be able to persuade people locally that it has changed.”

Al Nahda, formed as a movement during the Bin Ali years and with many of its leaders imprisoned or exiled during that time, has in the past struggled with internal splits between its more moderate and conservative wings.

A crisis over the murder of two opposition leaders and Al Nahda’s handling of hardline conservative Salafist groups eventually forced the party to step aside during its first government for a caretaker administration in 2014.

Since then, Al Nahda and secularists have made compromise a byword for Tunisian politics after their deal-making pulled the country out of that political confrontation, and allowed Tunisia to approve the new constitution.

Tunisia President Beji Qaid Al Sebsi welcomed the step to separate politics and religious activities, saying that Al Nahda was heading in the right direction. He said the next test for Al Nahda will be local elections in March 2017.

“The state now respects religion and religious freedoms, contrary to the way it was in the past,” he said. “Political movements should be directed toward political competition and serve the people only.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 May 2016, 7:48 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Political Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tunisia’s Nahda party ditches Islamist tag

Heba Saleh in Cairo

Financial Times

May 22, 2016

Tunisia’s Nahda party, a member of the governing coalition and the biggest force in parliament, has ditched its ‘Islamist’ label, saying it would end its religious activities and devote itself solely to politics.

The change, adopted in a vote by an overwhelming majority of delegates at a weekend party conference, is unprecedented in the region for an Islamist group. It also marks another milestone in the evolution of a once-repressed movement persecuted under the secular dictatorship of Zein al-Abidine Ben Ali but which staged a strong come back after the 2011 revolution.

Under the leadership of its founder, Rachid Ghannouchi, Nahda has demonstrated political flexibility by striking a historic bargain with influential secular groups. This prevented the democratic transition from unraveling and helped make Tunisia the only success story among Arab countries which staged uprisings in 2011.

Addressing the Nahda conference, held in a stadium and attended by 1,300 delegates, Mr Ghannouchi said: “Nahda has evolved from defending identity to ensuring the democratic transition, and today moves on to focus on the economic transition.”

He also said that religion would be kept apart from “political struggles” and mosques should be completely neutral and play no role in politics.

A compromise constitution adopted in 2014 does not mention the implementation of Islamic law and preserves gains achieved by women in previous eras such as the banning of polygamy. Unlike other Islamist groups in the region, Nahda says its struggle is no longer motivated by the preservation of the country’s Islamic identity but by the need for good governance and economic development.

Osama Sghaier, a party spokesman, said Nahda said the issue of Tunisia’s identity was already settled by the constitution. He said the party wanted to shed the “Islamist” tag so as not to be grouped together with violent groups such as al-Qaeda.

“We are Muslim democrats,” he said.

Monica Marks, a Tunisia specialist, argued that the move represents a “rebranding” by Nahda as well as a “formalisation of a long-brewing trend within the party.”

“I see this as mainly about messaging,” she said. “They don’t want to be lumped into the same category as al-Qaeda and Boko Haram. They want to be more like the Christian Democratic Party in Germany, or the AKP in its early version in Turkey.”

“All the same, religious identity will still play a role. Conservative Tunisians who believe that religion has a role in public life will gravitate to Nahda, whose internal culture will remain Islamist. For instance, the delegates to the conference are being hosted in hotels which do not serve alcohol.”

In the early years of the transition, when Nahda was the main party in government, it came under intense criticism from secular groups who accused it of being soft on extremist factions in the country.

The killing of two secular politicians by radicals in 2013 led to massive demonstrations against the party and calls for steps already taken in the transition, such as the election of a constitution-drafting assembly, to be annulled. Subsequent negotiations, mediated by civil society groups, saved the transition, but many secular Tunisians remain suspicious of Nahda.

Bochra Belhaj, an independent secular member of the Tunisian parliament, said she will be looking to see if Nahda’s announcements at the conference will be followed by concrete steps.

“This is a positive move, but we will have to see what it will mean in reality,” she said. “Specifically, I want to see if they stop supporting hardline religious associations which have praised terrorism in the past.”

Mr Sghaier said one change adopted at the conference will ban all elected cadres in the party hierarchy from involvement in civil society groups such as religious or charitable associations.

“If you want to be in politics you can, and if you want to be in civil society, that is also possible, but you can’t do both,” he said. “In the past, we struggled to be present wherever we could, but now this decision conforms to a democratic choice and to the law and the constitution.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 May 2016, 7:34 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Political Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will PAC Chairman Hasan apologise for his several breaches of parliamentary privileges in connection with PAC Report on 1MDB and make amends by tabling in Parliament  the Report of Auditor General on 1MDB as he had promised on 7th March and re-open investigations into 1MDB scandal?

Will the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin apologise for his several breaches of parliamentary privileges in connection with the PAC Report on 1MDB and make amends by tabling in Parliament the Report of the Auditor-General on 1MDB as he had promised on 7th March?

On 7th March 2016, Hasan gave a categorical statement that the Auditor-General’s final report on 1MDB investigations would be “declassified” under the Official Secrets Act 1972 once the PAC tables its report to Parliament.

The PAC Report on 1MDB was tabled in Parliament on April 7, and there are no signs that the Auditor-General’s final report on the 1MDB will be tabled in Parliament, which will adjourn on Thursday this week.

Hasan had said at the time that the Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang had explained that the Auditor-General’s final report on 1MDB will no longer be a classified document under OSA once PAC tables its 1MDB report.

Can Hasan explain why he is dragging his feet in tabling the Auditor-General’s final report on 1MDB as attachment to the PAC Report on 1MDB?

What has Hasan and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak  and his government to hide in refusing to make public the Auditor-General’s final report on 1MDB?

An important principle of parliamentary democracy is involved here. As PAC is a committee of Parliament, any document or information provided to PAC must be regarded as being provided to Parliament and must be finally submitted to Parliament, and no witness or agency should be allowed to make the utterly spurious and unacceptable claim that its information provided to the PAC is only for the “intelligence” of PAC but not to be extended to Parliament.

I am surprised that the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia is not upholding this important parliamentary principle, but instead is supporting the  spurious argument that Official Secrets Act could be used as an justification not to extend information by PAC to Parliament.

As an important principle in the doctrine of separation of powers is involved, the Speaker should be upholding and defending the powers of the Legislature against encroachments by the Executive, and it is most regrettable that the  Speaker of Parliament is not upholding the powers and rights of Parliament  but acting as a mere civil servant of the Najib Executive!

Where in the Parliamentary Standing Orders give the PAC powers, as a committee of Parliament, to receive information which is denied to Parliament –arrogating to itself powers PAC does not have.

Where in the Parliamentary Standing Orders allows the PAC Chairman to unilaterally and arbitrarily tamper with a PAC Report which had been finalized by the PAC?

Where in the Parliamentary Standing Orders confers on the PAC Chairman powers to receive correspondence or information which is denied to other members of the PAC, as in the case of the so-called Bank Negara letter to the PAC Chairman about Good Star Limited (GSL), the mysterious company implicated in the “original sin” of the 1MDB global scandal?

Who was in charge of the PAC Secretariat which allegedly fed the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Azalina Othman, with wrong information causing her to lie in Parliament when she replied to the DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng last Monday that PAC members were informed about the deleted lines from the PAC Report on 1MDB because of correspondence from Bank Negara on April 6 that its information was “confidential for the purpose of intelligence only and not for court usage or public report”?

Finally, as the PAC Report on the 1MDB had only dealt with the “tip of the iceberg” of the 1MDB global financial scandal, leaving many leading and  important questions unanswered, is Hasan as  the PAC Chairman  prepared to re-open PAC investigations into the 1MDB scandal to get to the bottom of the nation’s first global financial scandal, or will he resign as PAC Chairman so that PAC could re-open investigations into the 1MDB scandal without any impediment or obstacle whatsoever?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 May 2016, 7:57 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1MDB financial scandal – the global noose is closing in while at home the Ministers are in sixes and sevens trying to defend the indefensible

Three international developments today are harbingers of the global noose of the 1MDB scandal that  is closing in, viz:

•	The withdrawal of the BSI Bank’s status as a merchant bank in the city state by the Monetary Authority of Singapore for “serious breaches of anti-money laundering requirements, poor management oversight of the bank’s operations and gross misconduct by some of the bank’s staff” and the reference of six members of the BSI  Bank’s senior management and staff to the public prosecutor – after  investigations into the 1MDB scandal in Singapore.

•	Commencement of criminal proceedings by Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG) against BSI SA Bank for allegedly failing to prevent offences linked to 1MDB, including offences of money laundering and bribery of foreign public officials. Swiss authorities believe at least RM4 billion in Malaysian state fund had been misappropriated as part of their investigations into 1MDB scandal.

•	Resignation with immediate effect of Swiss Bank BSI’s Group CEO Stefano Coduri following the announcement  by the Money Authority of Singapore on the  closure of its Singapore branch and criminal proceedings by the Swiss OAG in connection with their 1MDB investigations.

At home in Malaysia, however, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Ministers and minions are in sixes and sevens, indulging in sophistry, prevarication, obfuscation and downright  evasion defending the indefensible instead of being true and frank about the RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion global financial scandals.

The UMNO cyber warfare chief and Deputy Finance Minister, Ahmad Maslan, is one such example.

Today, he tried to dismiss the speech by the  Special Affairs Department (Jasa) director, Datuk Puad Zarkashi to Malay students in his “Veracity Tour” in Canberra that Najib had told UMNO leaders when the Wall Street Journal reported the expose in early July last year  that he had Bank Negara documents to  approve the transfer the money (RM2.6 billion) into his personal accounts and that he had discussed it with the Bank Negara governor as “old story”.

Ahmad told the press: “This was a long time ago. Why do we want to revive old stories?” Ahmad asked when questioned on this at the Parliament lobby today.

Ahmad cannot be more wrong. What Puad told Malay students in Canberra is not an “old story” but a “new story”, for nobody, not even Najib, had told the story related by Puad before!

Where did Puad get this “new story”? Did he concoct it and would Najib come forward to endorse it, or would the Prime Minister keep his silence because he does not want to expose his underlings when they are telling “tall stories” to brainwash ordinary UMNO members or Malay students overseas?

I agree that  with Puad’s “new story”, silence is no more an option for the former Bank Negara Governor, Tan Sri Zeti Akthar Aziz and she must come forward to declare whether she had indeed given approval to Najib to transfer the RM2.6 billion into his personal bank accounts and been complicit in the “donation” scandal.

I am surprised by the low standard of sophistry, prevarication, obfuscation and downright  evasion employed by some of the Ministers in the current meeting of Parliament.

For instance, a written reply yesterday to the DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua by the Finance Minister implied that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was not involved in the transfer of US$3.5 billion from 1MDB to a British Virgin Island entity it believed was a subsidiary of International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) but which IPIC has now declared had no links whatsoever with IPIC or its subsidiary Abu Dhabi-unit Aabar Investments PJS.

Article 117 of the 1MDB Memorandum and Articles of Association (M & A) requires all major decisions of the company involving financial commitment (including investment) and restructuring to have the written authorization from the Prime Minister.

Is the Finance Ministry’s answer the truth, which means that the 1MDB had violated Article 117 of its M&A, raising the question whether the payment of US$3.5 billion by 1MDB to the British Virgin Island entity (which appeared to very disappeared into thin air) was properly made, or whether the parliamentary answer had not reflected the truth.

Why is the Najib government allowing Malaysia to suffer almost daily humiliation as the  1MDB global scandal is  virtually the staple daily diet in international media for months, when Najib should come up to give a full, true and accurate account of the 1MDB scandal.

It is still not too late for Najib to make a clean breast of the 1MDB scandal and he should come to Parliament tomorrow or on Thursday to accept full accountability and responsibility for the 1MDB global scandal instead of allowing Malaysia’s international repute and standing to be  subject to a thousand cuts by almost daily adverse publicity in the  world media.

Will Najib agree to a two-day extension of the  current Parliamentary meeting next week to debate the PAC Report on 1MDB as well as his  Ministerial statement on the subject, which will allow MPs from both sides of the House to deal with the national and international development of the 1MDB scandal, including the criminal proceedings in Switzerland and the closure of BSI Bank in Singapore in connection with the 1MDB scandal?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, 5:03 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Confidence wanes in Malaysia govt-backed 1MDB bonds

Straits Times

24th May 2016

SINGAPORE • The fortunes of bonds in Malaysia’s troubled investment fund 1MDB are diverging this month: Those guaranteed by Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund have rallied, while notes with support from Malaysia’s own government have dropped.

Its 4.4 per cent 2023 notes, backed by a letter of support from Malaysia’s government, slumped 6.4 per cent in May, set for the worst slide in 16 months. The fund’s 5.99 per cent 2022 bonds, on which Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Co (IPIC) paid interest earlier this month in its role as guarantor, gained 1.9 per cent, the most since at least September 2014.

The contrast reflects growing investor concern about the Malaysian government’s backing as it grapples with an economy forecast to expand at its slowest pace in seven years amid a collapse in oil prices. 1MDB is at the centre of multiple investigations from Switzerland to the US amid allegations of money laundering and embezzlement.

Even as the firm has consistently denied wrongdoing, it has brought negative attention to the government.

“In the past, people could just look at the support as enough,” said Dr Sean Chang, head of Asian debt investment at Baring Asset Management in Hong Kong. “But now, the macro picture is very different. Malaysia is a commodity exporter and if this kind of market environment persists, it may not do them a favour. A straight guarantee is more clear-cut and people are happy to hold on to those exposures.”

With another coupon due this month, 1MDB referred requests for comments on its interest payment plans to previous statements it had made on the matter.

The company said on April 26 that “it will meet all of its other existing financial obligations and has ample liquidity to do so”.

The finance ministry reiterated on May 11 that it will “continue to fulfill all of its outstanding financial commitments, including any explicitly guaranteed debt and debt which carries a government letter of support, to domestic and international investors.”

1MDB itself did not make payments on two IPIC-guaranteed bonds in the past month because of a dispute with the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. On April 25, the fund defaulted on a US$1.75 billion (S$2.4 billion) privately placed bond, missing a US$50 million interest payment. IPIC, which was also co-guarantor on those notes, said it would make the payment only if the Malaysian fund first failed to do so.

BLOOMBERG

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, 3:25 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Prime Minister Resurrected And Hitting Back?

Greg Lopez

Forbes

MAY 23, 2016

Malaysia’s embattled prime minister seems to be weathering the corruption allegations – and by some signs may even be going back on the offensive.

On Jul. 2, 2015, the Wall Street Journal “alleged” that $700 million had gone into the personal bank accounts of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

On Aug. 3, 2015, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) reported that the alleged $700 million deposited into Razak’s accounts came from donations, and not from the debt-laden 1MDB.

Many opined that he could not possibly survive this disclosure; with several suggesting that he was a “dead man walking”.

If Razak is likened to a pharaoh – a term given to Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, who is now the main protagonist in attempting to bring down Razak – one could say that the period between Jul. 2, 2015 and May 8, 2016 was a period where Razak was “mummified,” safe within the pyramid. Several defensive measures were later followed with the election triumph of the Barisan Nasional (the ruling coalition that the prime minister leads) in the Sarawak state election, suggesting that the “mummy” is now fully resurrected.

The defensive measure taken included steps taken toward three of the four senior civil servants appointed by the prime minister to investigate the 1MDB allegations. The Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who was tasked to lead this high-powered multi-agency team, and believed to be preparing charges against Razak, was sacked.

The prime minister also sacked Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (the deputy prime minister, education minister and deputy president of UMNO) who had publicly raised questions over the 1MDB issue.

Razak also promoted four members (and in the process dropped another four ministers and a deputy minister) from the bipartisan parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that had been vigorously pursuing the 1MDB issue. And after replacing the chairman of the PAC, it performed to expectations with the final report taking the heat off the prime minister. Also, among those dropped was Rural and Regional Development Minister Mohd Shafie Apdal, an UMNO vice-president and a powerful politician from Sabah.

Meanwhile, the Bank Negara (Central Bank) Governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, came under intense attack. Among those, a blog, The Recounter, at the time of the 1MDB investigations, alleged that the police were investigating Tan Sri Zeti on a water contract that had been awarded to a company which had several directors who were related to her. Another investigation was supposed to be focused on her husband, who received a commission on the takeover of Southern Bank by CIMB that was approved by the central bank. Although Malaysia’s Inspector General of Police (IGP) denied this, there was no further query if indeed there was any merit to the allegations. Tan Sri Zeti has denied the allegations and threatened to sue those responsible for making them, but she still has yet to do so.

Kevin Morais, a senior deputy public prosecutor, who was believed to be working on the 1MDB case (and believed to have reviewed or prepared the charge sheet), was then found brutally murdered (Note: This video by the award-winning Four Corners team of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation pieces together all the available evidence on the 1MDB issue).

Tan Sri Abu Kassim, the MACC chief commissioner, had quietly gone on extended leave to recover from an operation after the investigation had begun. Only the Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, remained active in the public eye, investigating officers to find the source of leaks that had embarrassed Razak.

His administration had also been clamping down on the already limited civil and political rights of Malaysians. The Director General of Immigration recently announced that Malaysians who criticized the government overseas could be banned from travelling for up to three years. All of these are designed to have a chilling effect, particularly among Malaysia’s middle class – one of the most vocal groups since the general election of 2008, both at home and abroad.

The Sarawak elections is likely a purveyor of things to come. Bridget Welsh provides some insight from the ground on what happened in Sarawak and its implications to Malaysia in general. Key to this is the fact that Razak has figured out how he can win at the next Malaysian general election – skew the electoral system further; break up the opposition; demonstrate that they are incapable of cooperation; ensure that Sabah and Sarawak remains in the BN orbit, win enough rural and marginal seats (where the opposition does not have a commanding majority through any means) on the peninsula.

After the recent Sarawak state elections, a triumphant Razak was in London for a two day working visit that includes the Malaysia-UK Investor Showcase. While in the U.K., Razak announced several high profile ventures.

Khazanah – Malaysia’s other sovereign wealth fund – had set up an endowment of 5 million pounds over five years to sponsor up to three Malaysian scholars to pursue postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford. The prime minister also announced that Khazanah would set up a Khazanah Residency Program that will sponsor up to 10 qualified Malaysians every year for short-term residencies and fellowships in locations around the world. These fellowships are focused on five areas: arts, culture and society, design, public service, journalism, and science and technology. One wonders if individuals critical of the government will be able to apply. Razak also officiated the opening of Khazanah Europe Investment Ltd office at London’s iconic The Shard. Richard Graham, David Cameron’s trade envoy to Malaysia possibly summed up the view of international leaders towards Razak:

“I think business with Malaysia is extremely important and that must carry on.”

These high profile events were designed to signal Razak’s return in a very public way. He is now back on the offensive. While in London, he publicly attacked former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed by stating:

“He has received so much through Barisan and Umno. Without the BN and the party, he would not have been a minister or the prime minister for 22 years. He and his family have benefited from his position as prime minister, and this is due to the strength of Barisan and Umno.”

Razak’s detractors have tried their best to shame him into resignation, but this has not worked. Instead, Razak has used the resources availed to him as prime minister of Malaysia and president of the BN and UMNO to effectively stifle any challenge. He has broken up Malaysia’s most successful and effective opposition, Pakatan Rakyat. The new opposition, Pakatan Harapan, is in disarray as key players in PKR are still hanging onto PAS. Razak has broken up the two major challenges to UMNO on the peninsula, the two other Malay majority parties, PKR and PAS. Several in PAS seek closer cooperation with UMNO, while several in PKR seek closer cooperation with PAS. Civil society shot itself in the foot when its leading lights, such as Bersih’s Maria Chin Abdullah and Ambiga Sreenevasan, joined (in their personal capacity) Mohamed’s “Save Malaysia” coalition. This has cast doubts among Malaysians who were genuinely seeking a root and branch culling of UMNO from Malaysia’s political landscape.

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s economy continues to chug along. It remains a stable polity. Most Malaysians get on with their daily lives as they always have.

Najib Razak is back, and evidence suggests that the “mummy” is here to stay.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, 3:14 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time for Najib to speak up personally and state which version or versions about the source of the multi-billion ringgit deposits into his personal bank accounts was the true and correct one

Since the expose by Wall Street Journal in early July last year of the RM2.6 billion into Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal banking accounts, there have been numerous diverse and even conflicting versions about the source of the multi-billion ringgit deposits in Najib’s accounts, with the total figure expanding from  RM2.6 billion to RM4.2 billion.

The latest and newest version about the source of the RM2.6 billion donation to Najib’s personal banking accounts came from the Director-General of Department of Special Affairs (Jasa), Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi in his speech in Canberra in his international “Veracity Tour”  to “brainwash” Malay students overseas.

Puad told  Malay students in Canberra that Najib had told UMNO leaders when the Wall Street Journal reported the expose in early July last year  that he had “Bank Negara documents” to  approve the transfer the money (RM2.6 billion) into his personal accounts and that he had discussed it with the Bank Negara governor.

According to Puad, Najib denied the money originated from 1MDB and told UMNO leaders that the money was from the Saudi King (Raja Saudi) to “combat the Islamic State, and secondly, to help in other places such as in Palestine and others”.

The other and sometimes conflicting versions of the source of the RM2.6 billion “donation” into Najib’s personal bank accounts include:

•       On August 11, 2015, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said the donation was from a “brotherly nation” which wanted to see certain parties win the 13th general election because they were friendly to them.

 •       Four days later, Umno Kuantan division chief Datuk Seri Wan Adnan Wan Mamat said the RM2.6 billion was from Saudi Arabia as a form of appreciation of Malaysia “championing Islam” and fighting militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).

•       But on August 22, Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said the donation came from their “Muslim friends in the Middle East” to help Umno fight DAP in the  general election, as the party was funded by Jews.

 •       Later that same day, Zahid said he met the donors’ representatives who informed him that the funds was in appreciation for the government’s efforts in countering terrorism, and to help Barisan Nasional (BN) maintain Malaysia’s status as a Sunni country.

•       After the new Attorney-General’s no-further-action decision on Najib, however, the BBC reported an unnamed Saudi source as saying that the money was donated to help the prime minister win GE13 and counter potential Muslim Brotherhood influence in Malaysia.

Can Najib now confirm which one or several of these versions were true and correct and which were untrue and incorrect?

In particular, whether he could confirm that the “donation” was made in appreciation of Malaysia’s “fight against Islamic State”, and how this could be so when the Islamic State only came into existence in mid-2014 while the RM2.6 billion donation was made in March 2013?

Furthermore, could Najib explain how he could give such high praise for the exploits of Islamic State’s predecessor, ISIL or ISIS, at the 20th anniversary dinner of UMNO Cheras Branch on June 24, 2014, calling on UMNO members to emulate the bravery of the ISIL/ISIS terrorists, when he is supposed to be an exemplar of international warrior against Islamic State, ISIL or ISIS?

Furthermore, is the total deposits into his personal bank accounts RM2.6 billion or RM4.2 billion?

The very fact that the  two basic questions of “Where the astronomical sums of money in Najib’s twin mega scandals came from and where they have gone to” continue to haunt and hound not only the Malaysian Prime Minister but the Malaysian public not only in Malaysia but in the international context  is an eloquent indictment of the failure of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) under Chairman Hasan Arifin to get to the bottom of the 1MDB scandal – as the  publication of the PAC Report (tampered by Hasan) on 1MDB scandal reveals  only the “tip of iceberg” of the 1MDB global scandal.

Will the PAC under Hasan re-open and continue investigations into the unfinished inquiry into the 1MDB scandal?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, 9:03 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did Puad Zakarshi tell a  lie to Malay students in Canberra about the RM2.6 billion “donation” in Najib’s personal banking accounts?

Did the Director-General of Department of Special Affairs (Jasa), Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi tell a lie to Malay students in Canberra during his “ Veracity Tour” in Australia about the RM2.6 billion “donation” in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal banking account?

This question immediately comes to mind after the Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz made a revealing admission today that the UMNO Supreme Council was never informed about the RM2.6 billion “donation” deposited into Najib’s personal banking accounts, which tallied with what the UMNO Deputy President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had been saying since his removal as Deputy Prime Minister in July last year.

This is what Nazri said today:

 “He (Najib) never told us (UMNO supreme council). He didn’t have to tell us. He just  have to get approval from Bank Negara, that’s all.” (Malaysiakini)

What Puad said in Canberra clearly contradicted what Nazri said today.

Puad claimed that Najib had admitted to UMNO leaders  as soon as the Wall Street Journal carried the expose about the RM2.6 billion in Najib’s personal banking accounts that he had received the money and claimed that he had discussed the matter with the then Bank Negara Governor Tan Sri Zati Akhtar Aziz and even received Bank Negara’s approval to  bring in the money.

According to Puad, Najib even said he had Bank Negara documents of the approval to transfer the money into his personal bank accounts.

Was Puad telling a lie or is Nazri’s version correct, that Najib never told UMNO leaders about the source of the RM2.6 billion “donation”?

Puad should speak up – was he telling the truth or a lie in his “Veracity Tour” to visit Malay students in Australia?

The Prime Minister himself should end his silence and make public the Bank Negara documents which approved his transfer of the RM2.6 billion into  his personal banking accounts.

Puad also owes an explanation to Malaysian taxpayers what is this “Veracity Tour” in Australia, the pretext for him to speak to Malay students in Australia to “brainwash” them into UMNO line of thinking.

It is indeed a great irony that Puad should be telling lies instead of the truth in his “Veracity Tour” of Australia.

Let Puad make public all the “Veracity Tours” he had undertaken as Director-General of Department of Special Affairs (Jasa), what are the countries and cities he had visited and when, the total expenses incurred, and the real motive and outcome for such  “Veracity Tours”.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 4:26 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has the end-game however protracted of the nation’s first global financial scandal – RM50-55 billion 1MDB scandal – begun with the two-pronged crackdown  by the Swiss and Singapore authorities?

Has the end-game, however protracted, of the nation’s first global financial scandal – the RM50-55 billion 1MDB scandal – begun with the two-pronged crackdown by the

Swiss and Singapore authorities yesterday?

The two-pronged crackdown involved the closure of the Singapore branch of BSI, the commencement of criminal proceedings against the bank by the Swiss authorities over “money laundering and corruption” offences relating to suspected embezzlement of US$4 billion from 1MDB and the liquidation of the 143-year-old Swiss bank.

In Malaysia, however, all that the government investment arm 1MDB could say in a statement is that “it had not been contacted by any foreign lawful authority on matters relating to the company”.

Nothing could be more surreal than this  response from 1MDB – suggesting that while over half a dozen countries are not only investigating, but beginning to commence criminal proceedings, against institutions and individuals for money laundering and embezzlement of 1MDB funds of at least US$4 billion, 1MDB as the company directly involved, is claiming that there had been no such embezzlement at all!

1MDB is creating world history as a company which is the subject of investigation by half a dozen foreign countries   involving multi-billion ringgit money-laundering and global corruption but which is strenuously denied by both the company  and its government.

Has there been any such a case, where a company is being investigated for multi-billion ringgit money laundering and global corruption by half a dozen foreign countries, but which is strenuously denied by the company affected and its government?

On this score, we must be the first in the world.

Fortuitously, there is a news report today that the Treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah had sent a message to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, that complacency had led Malaysia to trail other Asian countries.

Mohd Irwan said:

“We could have contributed to become the leader in Asia, number one, beating the Koreans (but) because we were complacent and we don’t have the hunger (we fell behind).”

He told a forum titled ‘The Talk: Inspiring Today’s Talent’ in Cyberjaya that he had advised the prime minister on the need to focus on youths in order to achieve a high-income nation status.

Mohd Irwan warned that the country would continue to stagnate if it does not move forward.

“Indonesia and Vietnam are going to overtake us, like what Korea did in the 70’s.”

He said another way for Malaysia to “go back to the limelight of being number one in Asia” is for everyone to work together.

What Mohd Irwan said is very true and right, in fact the very message that Pakatan Harapan leaders, in particular Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, have been stressing  to all Malaysians – that instead of becoming  world-class, we are being overtaken by other countries which had been more backward and  more undeveloped than us in the past.

Malaysia is now in the global limelight of being number one – but for all the wrong reasons.

An example is the 1MDB global scandal, which has catapulted Malaysia into the forefront of the world as one of the top ten countries infamous for global corruption.

Let Mohd Irwan advise the Prime Minister who is also the Finance Minister that Malaysia must not be in the world limelight for the wrong reasons, and the first  thing to do is to  bring the 1MDB global scandal to a close, not by trying to sweep things under carpet, which is impossible in a global society in the information age, but by immediately setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to delve into both Najib’s RM50-55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” mega scandals.

Only then can Malaysia start the journey to be great again!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 2:04 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia 1MDB scandal: Swiss regulator approves BSI takeover by EFG but imposes conditions

By Rachel Middleton

International Business Times

May 25, 2016

Private Swiss bank BSI, which has been ordered to close its operations in Singapore, has been slammed by its own regulator for failing to adequately monitor its relationship with Malaysian sovereign fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad. Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, FINMA, accused the bank of committing “serious breaches of money laundering regulations” and “fit and proper” requirements.

In a statement dated 24 May, FINMA said the bank “executed numerous large transactions with unclear purpose over a period of several years and, despite clearly suspicious indications, did not clarify the background to these transactions.”

Following its investigations, FINMA has now approved the takeover of BSI by EFG International with the condition that BSI will be “integrated and thereafter dissolved with 12 months”. As part of its conditions, none of the BSI top management “responsible for the misconduct” will be allowed to take up leadership positions at EFG, the statement said.

The regulator added: “This takeover is a positive development providing clients and employees with a perspective for the future.” The takeover will push the merged EFG entity into the top five Swiss wealth management companies.

FINMA has also “ordered the disgorgement of profits” of CHF95m (£65.4m; €85.8m; $95.6m) from BSI. It described the amount as the “disgorgement of illegally generated profits.” The money will go to the Swiss Confederation.

BSI fully cooperated with authorities

In a statement issued on 24 May, BSI said that it had fully cooperated with both FINMA and Singapore’s MAS. It said the fines, imposed by both watchdogs, will be paid from BSI’s General Reserves for Banking Risks.

The bank assured its clients that it “remains well capitalised with excellent liquidity and solvency ratios.” It added that it has also taken “significant steps” to strengthen its management. This includes the creation of the post of a new Chief Risk Officer and the appointment of a new Group Legal Counsel, both at Group Executive board level, to enhance the overall risk and compliance framework.

BSI group CEO Stefano Corduri has also submitted his resignation with immediate effect. Roberto Isolani, currently a member of the BSI board, has been appointed the new Group CEO, the statement also added. Isolani’s task will be running the bank and guaranteeing the smooth integration with EFG.

EFG assures shareholders BSI buy carries indemnity

In a separate statement, EFG said it expects its takeover of BSI to be completed in the fourth quarter of the year, at the latest. It assured its shareholders that its share purchase deal with BSI’s owner, BTG Pactual, carries an indemnity in relation to 1MDB.

A total of 51 million EFG shares will be issued to BTG and placed in a Swiss escrow account and locked up for two years under the indemnity deal. The fine imposed by the authorities, BTG said, will result in a reduction in the purchase price.

It continued: “EFG believes that these developments will draw a line, from a Swiss and Singaporean regulatory standpoint, with the past in connection with this matter and constitute another important step to remove related regulatory uncertainty for clients, employees, investors and other stakeholders.”

FINMA probes 2 ex-BSI top managers

In addition, FINMA said it is also investigating two former top BSI managers, to determine what they knew about these breaches, how they behaved and their individual responsibility in the case. FINMA said it reserves the right to launch further such proceedings.

The regulator said that from 2011 to April, 2015, there were serious shortcomings in identifying transactions involving increased risk. “These failures related in particular to business relationships with politically exposed persons, the origin of whose assets was not sufficiently clarified, and whose dubious transactions involving hundreds of millions of US dollars were not satisfactorily scrutinised.”

The watchdog noted that the bank’s misconduct was the result of a “deliberate management decision” and that on numerous oscasions, business relationships relating to 1MDB were discussed at top management level.

It said that although BSI had business relationships with a range of sovereign wealth funds, 1MDB was BSI’s largest and most profitable client group. It noted that the fees charged by BSI were “above average and out of line with normal market rates.”

Finma noted that in one case involving a deposit of $20m (£13m, €17m) from 1MDB, the bank was “happy to accept the client’s explanation that the funds involved were a ‘gift.’ ” It also said that similar transactions were carried out even though the explanations and contractual documents obtained “contradicted the purpose of the account as stated when it was opened.”

It also highlighted that a bank employee had flagged up in 2012 some concerns in a communication to management. The employee said: “My team is implementing these transactions without really knowing what we are doing and why and I am uncomfortable with this. … there should be a stronger governance process around all this.” No action was taken by the bank despite the concern raised.

Singapore’s financial market supervisory authority, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has withdrawn BSI’s local licence in the city state. It also imposed a fine of S$13.3m (£6.6m) for 41 breaches of its requirements.

Six members of the bank’s senior management have been referred to the public prosecutor to face legal proceedings. The withdrawal from BSI is the first time that the Singaporean authority has revoked a merchant bank’s licence in 32 years.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 12:17 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s 1MDB Web And The 143-Year-Old Swiss Bank It Ensnared

Shamim Adam and Andrea Tan

Bloomberg

May 24, 2016

Global probes related to a troubled Malaysian state fund have enmeshed the biggest casualty to date: a 143-year-old Swiss bank.

Singapore ordered BSI SA’s unit in the city state to shut down as Swiss authorities began criminal proceedings against the bank. Here’s the state of play.

How are 1MDB and BSI connected?

In September 2012, 1Malaysia Development Bhd. sold its shares in a venture for $2.32 billion and received units in a Cayman-registered fund managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong-based fund manager.

1MDB said the units were owned by its subsidiary Brazen Sky, and held through BSI in Singapore as custodian. Former 1MDB Chief Executive Officer Shahrol Halmi said BSI had advised 1MDB on the structure of the funds and the fund manager, according to transcripts of a parliamentary investigation into the Malaysian company.

That transaction and those related to it are the subject of criminal probes, including those conducted in Singapore.

1MDB said on Tuesday that its ownership of various fund investments has not been impacted by the announcements of Singapore and Swiss authorities on BSI.

Are there any other links?

*Aabar Investments PJSC

BSI Singapore did business with the Abu Dhabi company, according to Singapore court documents. 1MDB has also said it worked with individuals in the Middle Eastern entity and its parent.

*Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho

BSI Singapore also had business with Low, who has had ties to 1MDB. He has described his role in relation to the Malaysian fund as informal consulting work that didn’t break any law.

Status of Investigations into 1MDB and BSI

*Singapore

The city state said in February it seized “a large number” of bank accounts in connection with possible money-laundering in the country amid investigations into 1MDB. In March, the central bank said it had been conducting a “thorough review of various transactions as well as fund flows” through its banking system.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore said on Tuesday it will withdraw BSI’s status as a merchant bank for breaches of money laundering rules. The central bank said it was the “worst case of control lapses and gross misconduct that we have seen in the Singapore financial sector.”

*Switzerland

The Swiss Attorney-General’s office said in January a probe they conducted into 1MDB revealed “serious indications” that about $4 billion may have been misappropriated from state companies in Malaysia.

It said Tuesday the criminal proceedings on BSI are based on information gathered in the course of its investigation of 1MDB and from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, or Finma, its financial regulator. EFG International AG, which had planned to take over BSI, was given approval by Finma to do so provided that BSI will be fully integrated before being dissolved.

*Malaysia

The Malaysian police are still probing 1MDB after the conclusion of other investigations including those by the central bank. There has been no indication that BSI was being investigated in Malaysia.

BSI has exited its Malaysia business, then-Chief Executive Officer Stefano Coduri said during a March 31 call with investors, adding that the move was “in context” of 1MDB.

Note: 1MDB said Tuesday it hasn’t been contacted by any international legal authority on matters relating to the company. BSI said Tuesday that it has cooperated fully with the investigations into 1MDB by the Singapore and Swiss authorities.

Who’s Who

*Yeo Jiawei, a former BSI wealth planner

The first banker to be charged in Singapore last month amid investigations into the Malaysian fund. Yeo was said to have proposed investment products to 1MDB while at the bank. Prosecutors in Singapore have described Yeo as having a key role in moving “staggering” amounts of money. Yeo’s lawyer has said that several BSI employees are in a similar position and can answer queries by the authorities.

*Kevin Swampillai, suspended head of wealth-management services at BSI

Swampillai, who was Yeo’s manager, was named by the Singapore central bank on Tuesday as one of six senior BSI employees it referred to the prosecutor to evaluate if they committed criminal offenses. Swampillai was among those mentioned in obstruction-of-justice charges against Yeo. Swampillai’s lawyer Kenneth Pereira declined to comment Tuesday.

*Hanspeter Brunner, former head of Asia operations at BSI

BSI said in March that Brunner would be retiring. Brunner joined BSI in 2009 after leaving RBS Coutts Bank Ltd., and his departure from RBS Coutts was followed by about 70 employees. Brunner was also among the six referred to the prosecutor. He didn’t return calls and a text message seeking comment.

*Stefano Coduri, BSI’s former Group CEO

Coduri joined BSI in 1989 and had spent his entire career with the bank. He became CEO in 2012, and resigned Tuesday.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 12:32 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Q&A: How scandal in Malaysia hit a Swiss private bank

Michael Peel, Bangkok regional correspondent

Financial Times

May 24, 2016

Regulators in Europe and Asia have cracked down on BSI, the Swiss private bank, over alleged money-laundering failings related to the scandal over Malaysia’s 1MDB state investment fund. Claims that billions of dollars have been misappropriated from Malaysian state companies have spawned probes on several continents. BSI is now under criminal investigation in its home country and has been ordered to shut down in Singapore. It has been fined S$13.3m in Singapore and forced to disgorge profits of SFr95m in Switzerland. Here are a few questions raised by Tuesday’s events.

1. What was BSI’s relationship with 1MDB?

BSI appears to have had a deep transcontinental involvement in 1MDB-related business. In particular the Malaysian fund became a big part of BSI’s drive to win new business in Asia, after it opened its doors in Singapore in 2005 as a merchant bank offering private banking services. BSI counted as its clients not only the 1MDB parent fund itself but subsidiaries and related parties, court documents in the city state suggest. One was Brazen Sky, a 1MDB subsidiary through which $2.3bn was processed — not necessarily all through BSI — to buy investments in the Cayman Islands. 1MDB insists all this money is accounted for, but the fund’s critics say it has yet to show evidence of this.

Documents released by the Singapore attorney-general’s office in a civil court case involving a former BSI official state that another of the bank’s clients was Jho Low, a Malaysian financier whose role — if any — in 1MDB’s international dealings has come into question. Mr Low has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

BSI received the proceeds of a $3bn bond arranged for 1MDB by Goldman Sachs in 2013, a relatively unusual move as state funds usually deal with larger commercial banks. Goldman has denied any wrongdoing.

2. What happened in Switzerland?

In Switzerland, BSI committed “serious breaches” of anti-money-laundering rules, according to Finma, the country’s financial supervisor. BSI failed between 2011 and 2015 to identify risks around “dubious” transactions totalling hundreds of millions of dollars involving “politically exposed persons”, Finma said. The bank was happy to accept the client’s explanation in one case that $20m of new funds were a “gift”, while in another instance an account was credited with more than $98m without any effort to clarify the money’s commercial background.

Authorities have now approved BSI’s previously proposed takeover by Zurich-based EFG International, after which BSI will be dissolved. Stefano Coduri, BSI’s group chief executive, has resigned with immediate effect to be replaced by Roberto Isolani, a board member of the bank.

3. Why is BSI being shut down in Singapore?

The closure order is the climax of a string of troubles for BSI in Singapore. In 2011, a Monetary Authority of Singapore inspection of BSI found “policy and process lapses at the front office and weak enforcement by control functions”. The regulator says those problems were rectified. In 2014, another inspection revealed “serious shortcomings” in the bank’s due diligence on assets underlying investment funds structured for clients. Then a “more intrusive” third inspection last year uncovered “multiple breaches of anti-money-laundering regulations and a pervasive pattern of non-compliance”. The regulator says the bank suffered from widespread control failures, poor senior management oversight, a “blatant disregard” for monetary authority rules on compliance, and “numerous acts” of gross misconduct by certain staff.

BSI’s alleged record of problems raises a question of whether the authorities should have taken stronger action sooner. The Singapore regulator says the bank has made “substantive strides” on anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing over the past five years and now has a “comprehensive regime” in place.

4) Which BSI employees are being investigated and what are the allegations?

The Monetary Authority of Singapore said it had referred six past and present BSI executives to the public prosecutor to determine whether they had committed criminal offences. The most senior official named was Hanspeter Brunner, the bank’s former Asia head. Mr Brunner arrived from Royal Bank of Scotland Coutts’ Singapore office in 2010, bringing scores of colleagues with him. That group also included Raj Sriram, his deputy at BSI and another one of the six whose files have been passed to the Singapore prosecutor. Neither man could be reached for comment.

Yeo Jiawei, a third member of the six, has already been charged in Singapore with laundering-related offences and has also been accused of witness tampering and attempting to pervert the course of justice. He could not be reached for comment.

5) Are other banks under investigation?

RBS disclosed last month that Swiss authorities were investigating client accounts at Coutts, which used to be part of RBS’s private bank. A number of other financial institutions are claimed to have been involved in the web of 1MDB transactions that have spanned the US, Europe and Asia since the fund was set up in 2009. Finma, the Swiss financial supervisor, said last month it was investigating more than 20 banks in connection with the 1MDB affair and the Petrobras corruption scandal in Brazil.

The BSI action seems unlikely to be the last regulatory sanction over the 1MDB case.

Additional reporting by Jeevan Vasagar in Singapore

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 12:00 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Singapore kicks out Swiss bank linked to Malaysia’s 1MDB

The Nation

Thailand

May 25, 2016

SINGAPORE – Singapore’s central bank on Tuesday said it was kicking out Switzerland’s BSI Bank, which has been linked to a global money-laundering scandal that has embroiled neighbouring Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak.

In the toughest legal action so far in the crisis rocking Malaysian state fund 1MDB, Switzerland also disclosed it had launched criminal proceedings against the parent firm BSI SA for “deficiencies” in its internal organisation.

“BSI Bank is the worst case of control lapses and gross misconduct that we have seen in the Singapore financial sector,” Ravi Menon, managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), said in a statement.

MAS said it had asked state prosecutors to investigate six senior executives of BSI Bank for possible criminal offences and fined it Sg$ 13.3 million ($9.6 million) for 41 breaches of Singapore’s laws against money laundering.

Among those facing investigation is former chief executive Hans Peter Brunner.

Two Singaporean executives of the bank are already facing criminal proceedings in the city-state, which is Southeast Asia’s financial hub and hosts more than 200 banks.

BSI has been operating as a merchant bank in Singapore since November 2005, offering private banking services to wealthy individuals.

The last time Singapore stripped a merchant bank of its status was in 1984, when the local branch of Jardine Fleming was shut down for “serious lapses” in its advisory work.

Najib, who founded 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) in 2009, has battled allegations that billions were looted from the investment vehicle in a vast campaign of fraud and embezzlement stretching from the Middle East to the Caymans.

Denials

The fund, which ran up more than $11 billion in debt in a series of much-questioned investments, has steadfastly denied money was stolen or that it was in financial trouble.

Najib also faced questions after the Wall Street Journal revealed $681 million in transfers to his personal bank accounts.

But since the scandal erupted last year, Najib has weathered the allegations by curbing scrutiny by authorities, purging officials demanding accountability, and stifling media reporting.

He insists the $681 million was a gift from the Saudi royal family, most of which he returned. A Saudi official in April said that was true, but only after weeks of silence that cast doubt on the claim.

In a series of more recent reports, however, the newspaper said Malaysian investigation documents indicated more than $1 billion in 1MDB-linked money had been funnelled to Najib.

Najib and 1MDB vehemently deny that claim.

Najib has faced calls to resign but has tightened his grip on the ruling party and thwarted domestic investigations. His position is not seen as under imminent threat.

Singapore’s MAS said it was “working closely” with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), which has already approved the sale of the BSI parent firm to another Swiss-based bank, EFG International.

The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland said Tuesday that it had opened criminal proceedings against BSI SA “based on information revealed by the criminal proceedings in the 1MDB case”.

In Singapore, former BSI Bank relationship manager Yak Yew Chee is undergoing a criminal investigation for his dealings with a unit of 1MDB. His bank deposits have been frozen.

Separately, former BSI Bank wealth planner Yeo Jiawei, also a Singaporean, faces seven charges including forgery, money laundering, cheating and perverting the course of justice. He is in police custody and scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

– AFP

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Swiss bank to be shut over Malaysia scandal

Geir Moulson and Jamey Keaten

Associated Press

USA Today

May 24, 2016

GENEVA – A Swiss private bank will face criminal proceedings and be liquidated after allegedly committing serious breaches of anti-money laundering regulations in connection with the suspected embezzlement of a Malaysian state investment fund.

Switzerland’s market supervisor indicated Tuesday that BSI SA helped transfer money to the Alpine country connected to the Malaysian fund called 1MDB. Investigations so far into 1MDB have indicated that $4 billion earmarked for development projects in Malaysia may have been misappropriated from state-owned companies.

The Swiss market supervisor, FINMA, said that in the 1MDB case, BSI “executed numerous large transactions with unclear purpose over a period of several years and, despite clearly suspicious indications, did not clarify the background to these transactions.”

The Swiss attorney general’s office opened criminal proceedings against the bank, whose chief executive resigned Tuesday. BSI will be taken over by EFG International, another Swiss bank, on condition that BSI be integrated and dissolved within a year

In Singapore, authorities said they were ordering BSI’s local branch to shut down, citing serious breaches of anti-money laundering requirements, poor management oversight and gross misconduct by some staff.

Switzerland opened an investigation last year of two former fund officials and persons unknown on suspicion of bribery and money laundering, among other offenses.

FINMA said the bank had business relationships with a range of sovereign wealth funds, with accounts in both Switzerland and Singapore. It said senior management “did not question why the sovereign wealth funds should use a private bank to provide institutional services and pay excessive out-of-market fees for doing so.”

“In one case involving a deposit of $20 million for example, the bank was happy to accept the client’s explanation that the funds involved were a ‘gift’,” the supervisor said. “In another case, an account was credited with more than $98 million without any effort to clarify its commercial background.”

In another case, it said, $20 million was transferred through a variety of BSI accounts on the same day before being transferred to another bank — the kind of transaction that is “often a clear indication of money laundering.”

FINMA said exceptions to the bank’s internal rules were made for important clients, and that management was informed but took no action to monitor those exceptions. It ordered the confiscation of 95 million francs ($96 million) in “illegally generated profits.” It is investigating two former top managers to determine what they knew.

The attorney general’s office said it “suspects deficiencies in the internal organization” of BSI, based in Lugano.

The investigation so far “suggests that the offenses of money laundering and bribery of foreign public officials currently under investigation in the context of the 1MDB case could have been prevented had BSI SA been adequately organized,” it added.

No public officials in Malaysia have yet been charged with wrongdoing in relation to the case.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore said it had served BSI Bank Limited, the bank’s local subsidiary, notice of intention to withdraw its status as merchant bank in Singapore. It said it also has referred to prosecutors the names of six senior BSI Bank managers and staff to determine whether they committed criminal offenses.

Ravi Menon, the authority’s managing director, said BSI was “the worst case of control lapses and gross misconduct” seen in the city-state’s financial sector. It was the first time a merchant bank has been shut down in Singapore since 1984, when Hong Kong-based Jardine Fleming was shuttered for serious lapses in advisory work.

In February, Singapore said it had seized a large number of bank accounts and was working closely with Malaysia, the United States and Switzerland in the 1MDB probe.

BSI said it had “cooperated fully” with both FINMA and Singapore’s MAS on investigations into 1MDB arising from activities between 2011 and 2015. Regarding the Swiss attorney general’s announcement, the bank said that “BSI will cooperate to ensure a quick and fair resolution.”

CEO Stefano Coduri’s offer to resign was accepted by the board of directors, which thanked him “for his sense of responsibility,” the bank’s statement said. Roberto Isolani, currently a BSI board member, was appointed to replace him.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 11:44 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Swiss Open Criminal Proceedings Against BSI Over Malaysia Fund Allegations

By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE

New York Times

MAY 24, 2016

GENEVA — The authorities in Switzerland said on Tuesday that they had begun criminal proceedings against one of the country’s oldest banks, BSI, after allegations that it had laundered huge sums for “politically exposed” individuals linked to a scandal-plagued Malaysian state investment fund.

The Swiss attorney general’s office said in a statement that it suspected “deficiencies in the internal organization of the BSI S.A. bank” and believed “that due to these deficiencies, the bank was unable to prevent the commission of offenses currently under investigation in the criminal proceedings relating to” the investment fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

The prosecution arose from an investigation that Switzerland started last year into suspected misappropriation of billions of dollars from the Malaysian fund, also known as 1MDB, and that it has pursued in cooperation with the authorities in Luxembourg, Singapore and the United States.

The investigation has strained relations with Malaysia and embarrassed its prime minister, Najib Razak, who is fighting a scandal that has roiled Malaysian politics involving allegations that $681 million was paid into his bank accounts.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore announced separately on Tuesday that it was withdrawing the license of BSI’s Singapore branch “for serious breaches of anti-money laundering requirements, poor management oversight of the bank’s operations, and gross misconduct by some of the bank’s staff.”

The authority said it had considerable evidence of “gross dereliction” of duty by BSI management and had sent prosecutors the names of six senior managers to investigate whether they had committed criminal offenses.

The Swiss attorney general’s office said that it had started proceedings against BSI, the oldest bank in the Swiss canton of Ticino, as a result of its own investigations into transactions linked to 1MDB and on the basis of an investigation by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority.

In a separate statement on Tuesday, the financial market authority said that “through business relationships and transactions linked to the corruption scandals surrounding the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB,” BSI had “committed serious breaches of money laundering regulations.”

The authority said that it had ordered BSI to hand over to the Swiss government profits amounting to 95 million Swiss francs, or about $96 million, and had started legal proceedings against two of the bank’s former top managers.

On Tuesday, it also approved the takeover of BSI by a Zurich-based private bank, EFG International, under an agreement reached in February between EFG and BSI’s Brazilian owner, BTG Pactual. The authority said it had approved the deal on the conditions that BSI be completely integrated into EFG and dissolved within 12 months and that none of BSI’s top management associated with its misconduct take leadership positions in EFG.

EFG said in a statement that it believed Tuesday’s developments would “draw a line” ending regulatory uncertainty in Switzerland and Singapore for clients, employees, investors and other stakeholders.

The financial market authority said it had investigated 20 other Swiss banks and had started legal proceedings against six of them over transactions linked to either 1MDB or the Brazilian state oil company Petrobras, which has also been a subject of investigation by the Swiss authorities. BSI’s misconduct in its dealings with 1MDB “was particularly serious,” it said.

The Swiss attorney general’s office said in January that it suspected $4 billion earmarked for development projects in Malaysia had been misappropriated from 1MDB, citing cases involving companies in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, and a United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth fund, “each involving a systematic course of action carried out by means of complex financial structures.”

In its business with 1MDB, the Swiss financial market authority said, BSI handled transactions for several foreign sovereign wealth funds amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars without adequately clarifying the money’s origins and helped to set up intermediate structures for handling the funds intended to increase the confidentiality of the transactions.

The sovereign wealth funds had constituted BSI’s most profitable group of clients, the financial market authority said, and generated fees that were above market rates. BSI’s senior management “did not question why the sovereign wealth funds should use a private bank to provide institutional services and pay excessive out-of-market fees for doing so,” the authority said.

It said the Swiss bank had also failed to apply adequate risk management procedures to business relationships “with politically exposed persons, the origin of whose assets was not sufficiently clarified and whose dubious transactions involving hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars were not satisfactorily scrutinized.”

BSI had “happily accepted” the explanation that one deposit of $20 million was a “gift,” the market authority said, and in another instance it allowed $98 million to be paid into an account with no attempt to identify the commercial basis for the transaction.

“In many cases, there were clear indications of pass-through transactions,” the authority said, citing a case in which a payment of $20 million was shifted through several accounts on the same day before being transferred to another bank. Such transactions were often a clear indication of money laundering, but the bank failed to carry out any checks, the authority said.

The authority’s statement added that, despite its warnings to BSI about the risks in its dealings with clients linked to 1MDB, the bank’s board of directors and executive board had determined to continue these client relationships.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 11:34 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.