Malaysia will give the  world another cause to be dismissed as “laughing stock” if great-grandfather and longest-serving Prime Minister for 22 years, 91-year old Mahathir is investigated by police for “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”

It would appear that there are not  enough occasions for Malaysia to be the international object of ridicule, contempt and disgust after the infamy and ignominy of being regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocracy” and an entire jetliner disappearing into the oceans without a  trace for close to three years that the  Malaysian government and its  politicians are working overtime to create even more causes for Malaysia to be dismissed as a “mad, mad, mad world” in the international community of nations!

Today alone, there are three such instances.

There is firstly UMNO’s chief rabble rouser turning up at the Selangor Mentri Besar’s  Office in Shah Alam semi-nude, armed with a toothbrush tucked behind one ear and a dipper filled with toiletries, demanding to use the shower facilities there; while in Penang, the Gerakan and Barisan Nasional Chief staged a tasteless comedy appearing at a media conference with his mouth sealed by plasters creating an  “X” sign.

DAP had been in Opposition politics for 50 years (excluding Penang and Selangor where we captured state power after the political tsunami in the 2008 general elections) but despite the crushing pressures from the Barisan Nasional government, DAP had never went so low and to be such a cheapskate as to stage the “dramas” in Selangor and Penang yesterday.

May be Harith Iskander, who became the world’s funniest person in the world competition in Helsinki, should cede the crown to the two clowns in the Selangor and Penang circus yesterday.

Who say Gerakan is incapable of producing political feats when it has produced a political clown of the standard of the UMNO chief rabble rouser? Congrats Datuk Seri Mah Siew Keong!

However, both these events pale into insignificance compared to the third blooper or gaffe yesterday, when intentionally or unintentionally, the Deputy Home Minister, Datuk Seri Nur Jazlan revealed that Tun Mahathir would not be  spared police investigations under Section 124C of the Penal Code for allegedly attempting to undermine parliamentary democracy.

Malaysia will give the  world another cause to be dismissed as “laughing stock” if great-grandfather and longest-serving Prime Minister for 22 years, 91-year old Mahathir is investigated by police for “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.

Imagine Mahathir, who is a great-grandfather and not just grandfather, and at the advanced age of 91 years, investigated and accused of being “engaged in activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” after being the Prime Minister for 22 years!

The heads of those responsible for these comic-tragedies in Malaysia should be  examined!

(Speech in a dialogue with DAP Malacca state and branch leaders at Malacca DAP State premises on Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016 at 8 pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 22 December 2016, 11:06 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1MDB Case Hangs Over Goldman Sachs as Investigators Dig for Answers

By NATHANIEL POPPER and MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN

New York Times

DEC. 22, 2016

Even as Goldman Sachs is gaining a more prominent profile in the administration of Donald J. Trump, the Wall Street investment firm is undergoing scrutiny in an investigation in a sprawling international money laundering and embezzlement scheme.

Prosecutors have said that billions of dollars that Goldman raised for a Malaysian government investment fund — known as 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB — were channeled into a web of personal bank accounts and was ultimately used to buy paintings, luxury real estate and investment stakes in movies like “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

Investigators are now questioning what Goldman knew about the final use of the money.

Goldman has said it believed the money was being used to buy legitimate assets for the investment fund, which was run in part by the Malaysian government and its embattled prime minister, Najib Razak.

In recent months, lawyers for Goldman have presented information about its dealings with the Malaysian fund to federal prosecutors and the New York Department of Financial Services, according to people briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly about private meetings.

One such meeting took place recently at the Justice Department in Washington. The next meeting is set to take place in Washington in January, the people said.

The 1MDB case has become a signature campaign in the global effort by prosecutors to crack down on kleptocracy and the relative ease with which the superwealthy move their money beyond the oversight of government authorities.

The Justice Department has been particularly interested in the role that American banks and law firms have played in hiding the assets of the superwealthy.

Outside the United States, Singapore’s central bank recently said that it was barring Tim Leissner, the main Goldman banker who worked with the Malaysian investment fund, from the local securities industry.

This week, an employee of a Swiss bank was found guilty in a Singapore court of trying to obstruct the investigation into the case. Two other Swiss bankers involved in the case have already pleaded guilty in Singapore.

And on Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the highest ranking officials at Goldman, including the firm’s former president, Gary Cohn, were tracking and approving the transactions with 1MDB.

Mr. Cohn was recently appointed to be President-elect Trump’s top economic adviser and the director of the National Economic Council. Mr. Cohn could not be reached for comment.

Goldman Sachs and the Justice Department declined to comment.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly criticized Goldman Sachs for its ties to the global financial elite. But since his election, Mr. Trump has relied heavily on Goldman executives. In addition to Mr. Cohn’s appointment, Mr. Trump has picked a Goldman veteran and hedge fund manager, Steven T. Mnuchin, to be his Treasury Secretary and made another alumnus of the firm, Stephen K. Bannon, his top strategist.

The 1MDB case hangs over Goldman at a time when its fortunes are otherwise looking up after many hard years.

The firm has faced significant reputational damage after criticism that it profited from the subprime mortgage crisis. The company has also struggled under a raft of new regulations imposed on the financial industry after the mortgage meltdown.

But since Mr. Trump’s election, investors have been betting that Mr. Trump will roll back some of the legislation that has hit Goldman particularly hard.

Mr. Trump’s economic plans could also benefit the firm if interest rates rise and banks are able to charge more for loans. Goldman’s shares have shot up more sharply than the broader market and other bank stocks. Since the election, Goldman’s stock price has risen nearly 32 percent.

On the international front, a British judge ruled in Goldman’s favor in October after a trial on accusations that the firm had pushed Libya’s sovereign wealth fund into costly, improper investments.

In the 1MDB case, there have been no clear signs that the United States government is putting together a criminal case against Goldman or any of its executives.

The recent meetings in Washington between Goldman and the Justice Department may have just been an opportunity for the firm to help the government gather material about other targets in the 1MDB investigation, of which there are many. The Federal Reserve is also said to be reviewing the situation.

This summer, the Justice Department took the first public steps toward seizing $1 billion in assets that it says were moved to the United States after being taken from 1MDB by family and friends of Mr. Najib, the prime minister.

The Malaysian government has said that no money from 1MDB was misappropriated. This fall, the government arrested a critic of the prime minister who publicly disclosed classified information about the 1MDB investigation.

Jack Blum, a lawyer who led corruption investigations for several Senate committees, said that Goldman should have done a thorough investigation of what 1MDB was doing with the money that the bank helped it raise and move around the world, especially given the history of corruption in Malaysia.

“It is a very serious problem when a company is making a hell of a lot of money out of something and everybody in the place says, ‘I don’t know about it,’” Mr. Blum said.

Mr. Blum said that assigning legal blame in situations like the 1MDB case was generally hard because it would be difficult to prove that Goldman executives knew what was going to happen with the money before it happened.

Goldman has looked to distance itself from Mr. Leissner, who was at the center of the bank’s relationship with the Malaysian government.

Mr. Leissner, who is married to the American fashion designer Kimora Lee Simmons, left Goldman in January after the firm found a letter that Mr. Leissner wrote, on Goldman letterhead, vouching for Jho Low, a close associate of the Malaysian prime minister and a central target of various government investigations.

The Journal reported on Thursday that Goldman bankers helped Mr. Low transfer some $3 billion to a small Swiss bank, despite several red flags raised by the Swiss bank and lawyers.

The billions of dollars were raised for 1MDB by Goldman in multiple bond transactions that earned the bank outsize fees. The fees were large enough that they needed to get approval from top Goldman executives, including Mr. Cohn, The Journal reported.

In June, the New York State Department of Financial Services wrote a letter to Goldman asking for information about the proceeds of the bond sales “including, but not limited to, whether any ‘red flags’ existed concerning such payments.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 December 2016, 10:52 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2016 is ending as an even worse annus horribilis for Malaysia than 2015

In a week’s time, 2016 is  ending as an even worse annus horribilis for Malaysia than 2015.

Malaysians were shocked when at the end of last year, Malaysia was named among the  world’s six “worst corruption scandals of 2015” by the international website,
 foreignpolicy.com
, which is published daily online by the Slate Group, a division of Washington Post Company.

Malaysia was in the dishonourable third place, as the first two “worst corruption scandals of 2015” went to corruption in the  world’s soccer industry involving FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) and Nigeria. The fourth to sixth places went to Honduras and Guatemala, Ghanian judges and the UN General Assembly.

The infamous plaque of dishonour for Malaysia cited as follows:

“When U.S. President Barack Obama visited Malaysia in November, he had the pleasure of arriving in the middle of an awkward corruption scandal. Four months earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that some $700 million of state funds had ended up in Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s personal bank account — which was not where they were supposed to go. That tied Razak directly to a probe into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, a government-owned development company that was supposed to turn Kuala Lumpur into a thriving financial hub. Najib has disparaged the Journal’s reports as inaccurate, claiming instead that the money in his account came from personal donations. But the reports came after the fund had already fallen behind on its payment schedule. Obama claims he raised the question of corruption in a private meeting with Najib, but publicly said only that the government should aim to be ‘more accountable, more open, more transparent, to root out corruption’.”

In my media statement on 2016 New Year’s eve, I asked whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, would address such international infamy and ignominy in his  2016 New Year Message the same night?

Najib did.  In his 2016 New Year message, the  Prime Minister said  his twin mega scandals had been resolved and are no more issues, but Najib could not be more wrong as Malaysia had been pounded by the  international multi-billion dollar  1MDB kleptocratic money-laundering scandal without surcease for the whole year of 2016.

The  dishonour of being named world’s third “worst corruption scandal in 2015”  was small fry compared to greater international dishonour which followed quick and fast for Malaysia  in the whole of this year.

First
, Malaysia fell to 54th among 168 countries in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2015, and would have fallen to 59 to 60 position if five countries, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Puerto Rico and St Vincent – which had been ranked higher than Malaysia – were not  excluded due to technical reasons like not meeting three minimum secondary sources for research.

Second
, Malaysia was cited by TIME magazine in March as second worst example of global corruption, as follows:

“As investigations of the state fund got underway, it was revealed that $681 million dollars had been deposited into Najib’s personal account.The prime minister copped to the money transfer, but claimed it was a ‘gift’ from the Saudi royal family, about $620 million of which he says he has returned. Two weeks ago, the 1MDB investigation uncovered that the total routed into Najib’s personal account was actually about $1 billion.

“Malaysia is a de facto one-party country. All of the country’s six post-independence prime ministers have come from the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). That’s why Najib owes his position to his party, not to the Malaysian people – good news for a man currently polling at 23 percent, the lowest ever for a Malaysian head of government. He has spent the last half-decade strengthening his position within UMNO, and the past year since the 1MDB scandal broke purging his party of potential adversaries. This past summer, Najib fired his attorney general, who had been leading the 1MDB investigation. Malaysia exemplifies how corruption drives can fall short in countries with a single political party and weak governing institutions.”

Third
, Malaysia’s international corruption reputation continued to nose-dive  when it was placed second  by Economist in its index of crony capitalism in May – just behind Russia which clinched the crony capitalism crown.

Fourth,
 Malaysia ascended to  the throne of “global kleptocracy” when the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its largest kleptocratic lawsuits to forfeit US$1 billion of 1MDB-linked assets in the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland from US3.5 billion international 1MDB kleptocratic embezzlement and money-laundering scandal, which is expected to be followed by US criminal investigations and actions.

Fifth,
 criminal investigation and prosecution by over half a dozen countries as the  1MDB scandal involves at least 10 nations around the world from Asia to the Middle East to North Amercia, and involves the use of shell companies in offshore wealth centres, spending at a Honolulu Chanel store and Las Vegas gambling.

Recently,  a joke about Trump and corruption in Malaysia was making the rounds, viz:

Donald Trump wants the white house painted!

Chinese guy quoted 3 million

European guy quoted 7 million

Malaysian guy quoted 10 million.

Trump asked Chinese guy how did you quote?

He said:

1 million for paint

1 million for labour

1 million profit.

He asked European?

He said :

3 million for paint

2 million for labour

2 million profit.

He asked Malaysian?

Malaysian said:

4 million for me

3 million for you

3 million will give it to the Chinese guy to paint.

“4 million for me, 3 million for you” out of a 10 million  would put the corruption at 70% of the paint-job, which is phenomenally high.

But for Malaysia, this is nothing extraordinary.

In early October, the country was convulsed by reports of the rampant corruption in the Sabah Water Department, especially the revelation that 60 per cent of the RM3.3 billion earmarked by the federal government to improve water supply to residents, including those in remote areas in the Sabah State, had been “siphoned off” by corruption.

The Director and Deputy Director of the Sabah State Water Department were arrested on Oct. 4 by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), together with the confiscation of RM114 million worth of assets and RM53.7 million in “cold cash”, while further investigation revealed a money trail leading to Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.

But Malaysians are mystified why, after a further series of arrest and spate of high-publicity outings by MACC officers, there is suddenly complete silence on the Sabah “watergate” and nobody has been charged in court in the past three months.

Is there to be no end to this  debilitating and soul-destroying  international  and negative reverberations to Malaysia from  corruption and, in particular the monstrous 1MDB scandal?

Three recent developments should be food for thought for Malaysians in the closing days of 2016, viz:

Firstly
, Malaysia was named in “dishonourable despatches” in the 2016 year-end summary from Transparency International as one of the leading nations implicated in world-class corruption, when it said:

“What a year 2016 has been in the fight against corruption.

“Corruption was at the heart of many of the biggest news stories in 2016: from the Panama Papers, history’s biggest data leak that showed how the corrupt use secret companies to hide illicit wealth, to the impeachment of Brazil’s president due to corruption.

“We’ve seen millions of people take to the streets protesting against corruption in Kuala Lumpur, Pretoria, Caracas, Jakarta, Rio, Seoul and Reykjavik, just to name a few.”

Secondly
, Wall Street Journal yesterday featuring Malaysia’s 1MDB woes in a special coverage “How a Malaysian Scandal Spreads Across the World” detailing how the 1MDB global  fraud worked – extending its tentacles from Kuala Lumpur to Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands,  Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Washington, Honolulu and  London.

In its section entitled “Dragnet”, the WSJ feature said:

“Investigations into 1MDB are under way around the world. U.S. prosecutors have moved to seize $1 billion in assets allegedly acquired with misappropriated funds, and authorities have fined several international banks linked to the alleged scheme.”

Thirdly
, the conviction and jail sentence yesterday of a third former BSI banker in Singapore, Yeo Jiawei on charges of perverting the course of justice in a case linked to a money-laundering investigation involving Malaysian fund 1MDB.

Prosecutors said Yeo, 33, played a central role in the illicit movement of S$23.9 million ($16.54 million) of 1MDB-linked funds both while he was working at the now defunct BSI Bank Singapore, and afterwards.

Singapore authorities have called the 1MDB-linked investigation the most complex, sophisticated and largest money laundering case they have handled.

Yeo is facing another seven separate charges, including money laundering, cheating and forgery, which the prosecution said he would be tried for next year. Prosecutors have said he “could face more charges”.

Malaysians must have one common New Year 2017 Resolution – to end the series of annus horribilis worse than the previous year in the past three years, which  can only be done if all Malaysians are united in the resolve to Save Malaysia and to make the 14GE expected next year as a national battleline and choice between democracy and kleptocracy.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 December 2016, 8:51 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Goldman Sachs Ties to Scandal-Plagued 1MDB Run Deep

By JUSTIN BAER,  TOM WRIGHT and  KEN BROWN

Wall Street Journal

Dec. 22, 2016

Bank courted state fund now at heart of global embezzlement probes, and investigators want to know if it should have reported suspicious activity

On a yacht moored at Saint-Tropez, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak talked business with Abu Dhabi’s crown prince. Included in the horseshoe of chairs set up for the July 2013 gathering was a partner from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

The bank earned its place through years of cultivating Mr. Najib and a state investment fund he founded. Goldman had raised $6.5 billion for the fund and earned nearly $600 million in fees, making the Malaysian client among its most lucrative.

Mr. Najib lavished praise on Goldman, said people familiar with the meeting. “Do you see any other bankers on this boat?” one recalls him saying.

Today Mr. Najib and the state fund, 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, are at the center of what investigators consider one of the largest financial frauds in history. Investigators have said 1MDB was used by the prime minister as a political slush fund and by associates of his to buy more than $1 billion of real estate, art and other luxuries from London to Beverly Hills, Calif.

Among all the firms touched by the scandal, which include banks around the world, Goldman holds a unique position for its closeness to 1MDB and the principals.

When the Malaysian fund, which Swiss investigators have labeled a Ponzi scheme, ran into roadblocks in its quest to raise cash, Goldman helped keep the money flowing through bond sales. (See an interactive graphic exploring how the Malaysian scandal spread across the world.)

U.S. Justice Department investigators are trying to determine whether Goldman had reason to suspect that money it helped 1MDB raise was misused and, if so, whether the bank was obligated to report any concerns to authorities. The Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York state’s Department of Financial Services also are examining some of the bank’s actions, as are Singapore authorities, according to people familiar with the situation.

One point authorities are focusing on is Goldman’s relationship with Jho Low, a Malaysian financier and Najib confidant whom global investigators place at the center of the scandal. Tim Leissner, formerly Goldman’s chairman for Southeast Asia, dealt for several years with Mr. Low. Investigators believe Mr. Low made key decisions at 1MDB, despite holding no official position there, and received hundreds of millions of dollars taken from the fund starting in 2009.

Although Goldman turned down Mr. Low as a private client, on concerns about the source of his wealth, the bank continued to interact with him on 1MDB business, according to people familiar with events in several countries and investigations of those events. This article is based on interviews with a wide range of these people as well as on documents that include U.S. asset-seizure lawsuits filed in July.

Goldman has consistently said it did nothing wrong and had no way of knowing there might be fraud surrounding 1MDB. The bank has said its main role was raising money it thought would be used for the stated purposes. “We have found no evidence showing any involvement by Jho Low in the 1MDB bond transactions,” the firm said.

Mr. Low has denied any wrongdoing, as has Mr. Najib, and the prime minister has been cleared by the country’s attorney general. The 1MDB fund has denied it did anything wrong and pledged cooperation with investigations. Probes of the fund’s missing billions are under way in several countries.

Central to Goldman’s 1MDB dealings was Mr. Leissner, 47 years old, an outgoing German who was skilled at getting close to Asian businessmen, according to former colleagues. Some referred to Mr. Leissner, who is married to fashion designer Kimora Lee Simmons, as Dr. Tim, for a doctorate he had from now-defunct Somerset University in Britain.

The Wall Street bank played a unique role advising and helping Malaysian fund 1MDB raise money, much of which investigators say was stolen.

Mr. Leissner met Mr. Low in 2009. That year, Mr. Low persuaded one of Malaysia’s states to establish an oil-wealth fund, to which Goldman became an adviser. The fund evolved into 1MDB when the prime minister gave it the broader goal of spurring economic development.

Mr. Leissner in 2010 recommended a Goldman internship for the daughter of a close aide to the prime minister, according to Goldman employees. Shortly after she started work in Singapore, 1MDB hired Goldman to review a possible acquisition.

By 2012, 1MDB was struggling with debt. Mr. Leissner advised the fund on a bid to buy some power plants that would provide cash flow.

To make the deal, 1MDB needed to raise $1.75 billion, but it didn’t have a credit rating. Goldman suggested the fund find an entity with strong credit to guarantee the issue.

Mr. Low, who had Middle East ties, introduced people from Goldman and 1MDB to officials of an Abu Dhabi sovereign-wealth fund, International Petroleum Investment Co., or IPIC.

Mr. Low was someone Goldman had twice declined to let open a private account, because of compliance concerns. The bank also declined to serve as an adviser on deals done by Mr. Low’s family investment arm, said people familiar with the matter.

In the 1MDB matter, some at Goldman seemed confused about Mr. Low’s role. Mr. Leissner assured them Mr. Low played no part on the bond deal. Executives at Goldman were aware, however, that Mr. Low had made the introductions in Abu Dhabi. One managing director described him as “the 1MDB Operator or intermediary in Malaysia” in a March 2012 email cited by the Justice Department in lawsuits seeking the forfeiture of assets allegedly bought with misappropriated money.

The Malaysian fund received a guarantee of its bonds from IPIC, which declined to comment.

Goldman then got the bonds issued quickly by agreeing to take them onto its own balance sheet, for later sale to investors. The bank has said the risk it assumed in doing things this way justified a high fee. According to the Justice Department asset-forfeiture suits, the bank charged 1MDB $192.5 million, or about 11% of the bond issue. The fee on a deal like that would typically be about $1 million.

Goldman proved able to sell the bonds quickly, limiting its risk.

Later in 2012, 1MDB sought to raise another $1.75 billion to buy more power plants. Goldman and IPIC played the same roles as before.

Both deals were approved by five Goldman committees that vet transactions posing financial or legal risk. In doing business with 1MDB, Goldman officials drew reassurance from its status as a state fund with the imprimatur of the Malaysian government and support of the prime minister.

Goldman’s fee for the second bond deal totaled about $114 million, according to the U.S. lawsuits. David Ryan, then the bank’s Asia president, questioned why Goldman didn’t lower the fees more, since it had been able to unload the first batch of bonds so easily.

His objections were overruled by Goldman officials including President Gary Cohn, according to people familiar with the matter.

While Goldman worked on the bond deal, the firm appointed a strong defender of the 1MDB business to a post above Mr. Ryan in Asia.

Mr. Ryan, who had been considered a rising star, left the bank the next year. He didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Cohn is now President-elect Donald Trump’s pick as his top economic adviser. Through the firm, Mr. Cohn declined to comment.

Much of the money raised by this second 1MDB bond sale was siphoned off into a series of offshore shell companies, investigators have alleged.

In early 2013, Mr. Leissner and Michael Evans, who was a Goldman vice chairman, met with Mr. Najib at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Mr. Najib said 1MDB planned a joint venture with Abu Dhabi to build a financial center in Kuala Lumpur and wanted to sell $3 billion more of bonds.

At the time, Mr. Najib faced a tough re-election fight, and concerns that he might be tapping 1MDB for money to help him win were discussed openly within Goldman.

Mr. Leissner commented to a colleague in early 2013 that he knew 1MDB was operating partly as a political slush fund, according to the now-former colleague.

A friend of Mr. Leissner described hearing the same thing from Mr. Leissner about a year later and added that Mr. Leissner also said he was worried some 1MDB money was being stolen for personal enrichment.

A person familiar with Mr. Leissner’s thinking said he didn’t hold those views or voice them, calling the notion “revisionist history.”

Proceeds from a $3 billion bond issue would typically go into a major international bank, but 1MDB wanted them deposited into a small Swiss private bank called BSI SA.

Outside counsel at Linklaters law firm alerted Goldman that the bond proceeds were headed to a private bank. Goldman compliance executives approved the destination, in part because Goldman had done business with BSI in the past and had lined up global financial firms as correspondent and clearing banks.

BSI compliance officials, however, also questioned why the 1MDB bond proceeds were being sent to their bank, given its small size and its focus as a manager of wealthy people’s money, said a former BSI banker.

To assuage their concerns, Mr. Low asked Goldman bankers including Mr. Leissner to meet BSI’s compliance staff, according to the former BSI banker. The banker said BSI management later cited the attendance of a senior Goldman executive at this meeting, held in a Singapore Chinese restaurant, to overcome the compliance department’s concerns. BSI declined to comment.

After Goldman wired the $3 billion to 1MDB’s account at BSI, more than a third of it immediately was sent into a web of offshore funds, before ending up in an entity controlled by a Low associate, according to the U.S. Justice Department asset-forfeiture suits.

Singapore later charged three BSI executives with crimes linked to their dealings with 1MDB. Two pleaded guilty to forgery and failing to report suspicious transactions. The third was convicted on Wednesday of attempting to pervert the course of justice and is fighting charges that include money laundering.

Goldman bankers continued to court 1MDB business. Asia Chairman Mr. Evans was among guests who dined with Mr. Najib after the July 2013 meeting aboard the yacht at Saint-Tropez. About two months later, Mr. Najib, in New York for a United Nations assembly, headlined a meeting that Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein hosted for clients.

Mr. Leissner won praise at partner meetings for the business he brought in. During a late-2014 meeting focused on growth markets, Mr. Blankfein said, “Look at what Tim and Andrea [Vella, who structured the 1MDB bond deals] did in Malaysia.” He added, “We have to do more of that.”

Mr. Leissner earned more than $10 million a year at the height of the dealings with 1MDB, former Goldman executives said.

Mr. Leissner also did a personal business deal with Jasmine Loo , a former 1MDB official and associate of Mr. Low. Mr. Leissner received several hundred thousand dollars from Ms. Loo, to be co-invested with him. Mr. Leissner didn’t report her investment to Goldman, as required by the firm, said one person familiar with the matter. Ms. Loo couldn’t be reached for comment.

Goldman’s relationship with 1MDB began unraveling in 2014 when the cash-strapped fund sought a $1 billion loan from the bank. Goldman declined when 1MDB officials wouldn’t share information confirming the existence of the proposed collateral.

News of 1MDB’s debt struggles spread in 2015, with press reports linking Mr. Low to the fund’s problems. Pablo Salame, co-head of Goldman’s securities division, rejected an internal suggestion that the firm’s involvement in the mess could be blamed on the bankers and traders closest to 1MDB. Those people didn’t work alone, said Mr. Salame, who was recently named a vice chairman. “Goldman Sachs did these deals,” he said.

In June of 2015, Mr. Leissner wrote to Banque Havilland, a small Luxembourg private bank, vouching for Mr. Low, who wanted to open an account there. The letter said Goldman had done due diligence on Mr. Low and found no issues. Banque Havilland didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Goldman compliance executives learned of this in a January 2016 email search. The firm confronted Mr. Leissner about the letter, which violated its policies, and he resigned the next day.

Goldman refused to give Mr. Leissner some of his deferred compensation. The sides are negotiating the matter.

This month, Singapore’s Monetary Authority cited the letter in saying it planned to bar Mr. Leissner from doing business in the city-state for a decade. Mr. Leissner’s lawyer said his client has been invited by Singapore authorities to respond and plans to do so.

The Justice Department has classified Mr. Leissner as a “subject” of its Goldman inquiry, meaning someone whose “conduct is within the scope of a grand jury investigation” but who isn’t considered a target, people familiar with the matter said.

His attorney, Marc S. Harris, said, “Throughout his professional life, Mr. Leissner has conducted himself with integrity, dedication and with high ethical standards and we believe the various ongoing investigations will support these facts.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 December 2016, 7:38 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sixth tranche of questions for Salleh from 1MDB to Rukunegara, Vision 2020 and former Court of Appeal Judge N.H.Chan

My sixth tranche of questions for the  Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak to help him reinstate his right to ask questions and demand answers from others, after forfeiting  such right when as Minister  responsible  for  the portfolio  of information, he  failed to answer numerous questions about government scandals and failings, are as follows:

Question 26:

Yesterday, the  Finance Minister II Datuk Johari Abdul Gani yesterday said it was “good news” for the conviction of the third  former BSI Singapore banker Yeo Jiawei on witness-tampering charges in relation to Singapore’s investigations into the 1MDB money trail, which has resulted in Yeo’s 30 month prison sentence.

Yeo is to stand trial next year for another seven charges including money-laundering, cheating and forgery in the illicit movement of S$23.9 million (US$16.54 or RM74 million) of 1MDB-linked funds.

Is Johari’s “welcome” statement an indication that the Malaysian Government has woken up from its charade and realised that the Malaysian government cannot continue to pretend that the global 1MDB kleptocratic scandal is no problem at all in Malaysia when criminal investigations and prosecutions  connected with 1MDB are taking place in some 10 countries?

If so,  what is the government’s next step to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian government  by coming to grips with the international  1MBD money-laundering scandal?

Question 27:

As transparency and accountability is the mantra of the Najib premiership in its National Transformation programme on integrity, will Salleh suggest to the Prime Minister to set a personal example by making  public full details of his  five accounts in his  name in Ambank Islamic Bhd  with regard to sources of funds in relation to SRC International Bhd and RM2.6 billion donation into one of Najib’s accounts?

Question 28:

Can Salleh explain why the Najib Cabinet has deviated  from the bedrock nation-building principles entrenched in the Constitution, Rukunegara and Vision 2020.

In his UMNO Presidential Address on Nov. 30, Najib sought   to make “secular” and “liberal” dirty words, which was a great national disservice, especially as the first and third Prime Ministers have be very zealous in defending  Malaysia’s “secular” character and the second Prime Minister, Tun Razak was a strong advocate of  Malaysia’s “liberal” dimension by writing it into Rukunegara –“to ensure a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions”.

Najib has also failed all the nine strategic objectives in Vision 2020 to ensure Malaysia become a fully developed nation in all aspects in four years’ time by 2020.

Is Najib’s Cabinet prepared to issue a special White Paper to explain why it had failed the first four Prime Ministers of Malaysia and how it is going to uphold, protect and promote  the principles of nation-building in the Constitution,  Rukunega and Vision 2020?

Question 29:
 The Economist in its year-ender,
“The World in 2017”
, has a very unflattering piece on Malaysia in the coming year. Headlined
“The grey man hangs on”
with the sub-headline
“Najib Razak will endure. Too bad for Malaysia”
, the Economist seems to be on the same wavelength  and rare agreement with the Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali who recently said that 90 per cent of the people rejected Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak although he predicted that BN will retain federal power in the next general election.

Does Salleh agree with the Economist’s ”The World in 2017” forecast?

Question 30
:Yesterday, the country lost a great judge with the passing of former Court of Appeal judge, Datuk N. H. Chan, 81,  in Ipoh. He will be remembered for his courageous judgement in the Ayer Molek case, with the Shakespearean quote that “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark” as the judiciary was housed in a building called ‘Wisma Denmark’.

It was an era of “judge shopping” as alleged in the infamous Ayer Molek case. Lawyers, especially those involved in commercial cases, were found to have filed their cases in a manner which allowed them to manipulate their way to appear before their preferred judges.

N.H. Chan was a towering Malaysian. As an appreciation of his contributions to nation-building, will Salleh propose to  the Cabinet the retrospective bestowal by the Yang di Pertuan Agong of the honour of “Tan Sri” on former Justice N.H. Chan?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 23 December 2016, 12:51 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Best way to honour former Court of Appeal judge N.H. Chan is to fully restore the rule of law and a truly independent judiciary

This morning, accompanied by the DAP Perak Chairman Nga Kor Ming (MP for Taiping/Assemblyman for Kepayang) and DAP Perak Secretary, Wong Kah Woh (Perak State Assemblyman for Canning), I paid my last respects to a towering Malaysian and a great judge, former Court of Appeal judge, Datuk N.H. Chan.

Yesterday, I had made reference to Chan’s death when I said in my media statement:

“Yesterday, the country lost a great judge with the passing of former Court of Appeal judge, Datuk N. H. Chan, 81, in Ipoh. He will be remembered for his courageous judgement in the Ayer Molek case, with the Shakespearean quote that “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark” as the judiciary was housed in a building called ‘Wisma Denmark’.

“It was an era of ‘judge shopping’ as alleged in the infamous Ayer Molek case. Lawyers, especially those involved in commercial cases, were found to have filed their cases in a manner which allowed them to manipulate their way to appear before their preferred judges.”

“N.H. Chan was a towering Malaysian.”

I suggested that as an appreciation of his contributions to nation-building,  the Cabinet should decide on the retrospective bestowal by the Yang di Pertuan Agong of the honour of “Tan Sri” on former Justice N.H. Chan.

When I paid my respects to Chan  in Ipoh, I was struck by the modest two-storey house  at Sunrise Garden near the state stadium  in Ipoh which he had bought more than 30 years ago – highlighting his simplicity, integrity and high-mindedness , which is quite a rare quality for high officials in present-day Malaysia.

The best way to honour former Court of Appeal judge N.H. Chan is to fully restore the rule of law and a truly independent judiciary.

The passing of a great judge like Chan, who was clearly denied the opportunity to be appointed to the highest court of the land because of his independence and integrity,  should be an occasion for Malaysians, particularly lawyers and jurists in the country, to revisit the important question why the  standards of independence, integrity and professionalism of the judiciary had fallen far below those of the early decades of nationhood.

Many international reports had been published in the past to restore the rule of law and a truly independent judiciary in Malaysia, and their recommendations have include the following:

*the Government of Malaysia should not threaten or diminish the autonomy of the Bar Council;

*the Judiciary should act and be seen to act with complete  independence from the Executive and should do all in its power to counter the harshness of repressive legislation and overbearing  actions of the Government;

*the choice of judges in high profile cases be carefully considered;

*the Executive should refrain from speaking publicly about a trial before judgement has been delivered;

*Malaysia should become a party to United Nations human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and  Cultural Rights;

*certain restrictive legislation, including the  Sedition Act, should be repealed and an independent  Law Commission be established to review existing legislation and recommend amendments that are consistent with international human  rights law;

*Non-government organisations should be able to carry out non-violent activities freely without harassment and should be able  to exercise their right to freedom of expression

The time is ripe for a review to be carried out on the state of the rule of law and judiciary in Malaysia on the threshold of the country’s 60th Merdeka celebrations.

The Bar Council could spearhead such a review, which should involve not only the  civil society but the government as well.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 December 2016, 7:15 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Seventh tranche of questions for Salleh from BN government’s Janus-faced attitude to Yeo’s conviction to Felda acquisition of PT Eagle High Plantations

My seventh tranche of questions for the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak to help him reinstate his right to ask questions and demand answers from others, after forfeiting such right when as Minister responsible for the portfolio of information, he failed to answer numerous questions about government scandals and failings, are as follows:

Question 31:

Does Salleh agree that the Special Affairs Department (Jasa) statement today insisting that that ex-BSI banker Yeo Jiawei’s conviction in Singapore does not implicate 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the 1MDB investigations is an open contradiction of the welcome voiced by the Finance Minister II Datuk Johari Abdul Gani that it was “good news” for Yeo’s conviction on witness-tampering charges in relation to Singapore’s investigations into the 1MDB money trail.

Can Salleh as the de facto Information Minister explain why the Barisan Nasional is developing a Janus-faced personality on international trials on 1MDB kleptocratic money-laundering scandal, on the one hand “welcoming” Yeo’s conviction and on the other, disclaiming that Yeo’s conviction has anything to do with the 1MDB scandal.

Can Salleh explain BN Government’s Janus-faced attitude, why the “welcome” statement by Johari and the dismissive statement by JASA?

Question 32:

Furthermore, does Salleh agree that JASA’s statement today is one of the stupidest to be issued by the Barisan Nasional government on the 1MDB scandal, which has catapulted Malaysia into the ranks of “global kleptocracy”?

What is JASA trying to say when it insisted that Yeo’s conviction in Singapore does not implicate 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the 1MDB investigations?

JASA is only stating the obvious that Najib or Arul cannot be any stretch of imagination be implicated in the offence of witness tampering for which Yeo had been convicted and jailed, but the inescapable fact is that Yeo’s present conviction and jail sentence is only collateral to the major offences which included money-laundering, cheating and forgery in the illicit movement of S$23.9 million (US$16.54 or RM74 million) of 1MDB-linked funds.

How can JASA claim that these primary charges have nothing to do with Arul or even Najib as the key person solely responsible for all major decisions affecting the 1MDB?

Can 1MDB and the Barisan Nasional government continue to charade to pretend that they are unconcerned and unconnected to the criminal investigations and prosecutions connected with 1MDB which are taking place in some 10 countries all over the world – including the largest kleptocratic lawsuits initiated by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to forfeit US$1 billion of 1MDB-linked assets in US, UK and Switzerland?

Question 33:

Recently, Wall Street Journal featured Malaysia’s 1MDB woes in a special coverage “How a Malaysian Scandal Spreads Across the World” detailing how the 1MDB global fraud worked – extending its tentacles from Kuala Lumpur to Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands,  Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Washington, Honolulu and  London.

In its section entitled “Dragnet”, the WSJ feature said:

“Investigations into 1MDB are under way around the world. U.S. prosecutors have moved to seize $1 billion in assets allegedly acquired with misappropriated funds, and authorities have fined several international banks linked to the alleged scheme.”

Has the Cabinet discussed this WSJ article and what is the Cabinet’s decision.

Question 34:

Yesterday, the Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said that Barisan Nasional had still to reach consensus on Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi’s private member’s bill motion to amend Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355).

Is this true.

Hasn’t MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the Sabah and Sarawak component parties of Barisan Nasional already acquiesced to UMNO, as stated by Jamil Khir Baharom and Ahmad Maslan on Sunday, and agreed to the UMNO proposal to support Hadi’s private member’s bill in Parliament in March to be followed by a government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill?

Or will Salleh say that the other 13 BN component parties can still disagree with any UMNO proposal to support Hadi’s private member’s bill motion and their Mps can vote against Hadi’s private member’s bill motion as there is no Barisan Nasional consensus to support it in the March Parliament?

Question 35:

Salleh should explain why Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) is paying such a high price to acquire PT Eagle High Plantations, and how it could better shareholder value as well as benefit the taxpayers.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 24 December 2016, 7:06 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1MDB a big test for Singapore’s private banking

Straits Times Singapore

DEC 23, 2016

1MDB is the scandal that keeps on taking.

Having crippled institutional and political trust in Malaysia, brought down senior figures across the Middle East and triggered intensive investigations from Switzerland to the US, it has now given Singapore’s private banking industry its greatest test in a generation.

On Oct 11, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) threw Falcon Bank out of the country – the second bank to be closed down over 1MDB connections, after BSI in May. It fined DBS $1 million and UBS $1.3 million for breaches of anti-money-laundering requirements and control lapses. Standard Chartered Singapore was fined $5.2 million and Coutts Singapore $2.4 million.

Insiders say that the level of scrutiny private banks in Singapore receive from MAS, already high, is escalating, and that this is far more relevant than the fines.

Mr Rahul Malhotra, the head of South-east Asia and global non-resident Indians at JPMorgan in Singapore, says: “Regulators here want to do the right thing and are way ahead of where I would see the standard globally, in terms of making sure they have the right framework and policies.”

But apparently it has not been enough. The Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental body, says in a recent report that while Singapore is strong on tackling smaller-scale financial crime, particularly for what it calls “money mules” who courier cash for criminals, it is not strong enough on bigger cross- border cases.

“Singapore should more aggressively target the more complex cases expected of a sophisticated financial centre,” it says, noting that few foreign cases were being prosecuted.

So one should expect MAS to get a lot stricter now. That will have consequences. The margins in private banking, already thinning, will get tighter still as compliance and surveillance costs increase, exacerbating a trend for fringe players to exit the business.

And MAS, stung by the misdemeanours on its watch, must show itself to be tough on illegal behaviour while giving the industry enough room to breathe and grow.

The behaviour of Falcon, a Zurich-based lender, does not look good for Singapore. The local branch approved US$3.8 billion (S$5.5 billion) of asset transfers linked to 1MDB between 2012 and last year, under pressure from two board members with links to the Malaysian fund.

It has not escaped the attention of Singaporean bankers that Falcon’s Singapore branch manager has been arrested by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) and that criminal charges were levelled in October against two former employees of BSI, following an earlier money laundering charge against another former BSI employee in April.

Once the threat of arrest comes into the picture, bankers are very much on notice.

MAS says: “The key underpinning for Singapore’s growth as a financial centre over the last four decades has been its high standard of financial regulation and supervision. As an international financial centre, Singapore is exposed to money laundering risks. Having a strong regime for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism is critical to Singapore’s interests.”

Falcon and BSI were, as industry insiders put it, “in on it” and deserved to go. But what went wrong at the big guys?

Ms Tan Su Shan, group head of consumer banking and wealth management at DBS Bank says: “While MAS’ findings indicate that the bank’s control weaknesses are not pervasive, we should have taken more rigorous action with respect to the questionable activity, even if it was intentionally designed to conceal another purpose.”

A UBS statement is similar in tone: “We are disappointed we did not do more to detect and report this earlier.”

Digging a little deeper, the most common claim is that middle managers did not ask the right questions early enough, and, while all three of the international banks investigated by MAS point out that they themselves alerted the regulator to suspicious transactions, they did not do it quickly enough.

There is a hope that technology will help and in particular, the application of big data as a method of sharing and accessing vital information.

Another challenge for Singapore’s private banking industry came with an amnesty on overseas funds from Indonesia. The idea was that Indonesia would forgive the fact that funds had been secreted offshore out of local tax authority reach in exchange for disclosure and a modest tax bill.

To nobody’s surprise, most of the overseas assets were sitting in private bank accounts in Singapore. The equivalent of US$50 billion (S$72.4 billion) was declared there and US$6 billion has been repatriated so far.

While this is good news for Indonesia’s Budget, it is not ideal for Singapore’s private banking industry. The amnesty has raised awkward issues about disclosure and client confidentiality.

In September, it emerged that Singapore’s private banks were notifying the police about any Indonesian clients who were declaring under the amnesty.

There is, it seems, a reasonable explanation. Singapore’s Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office says banks must notify the office if clients accept the amnesty of another country and none of the Indonesian clients has broken any domestic laws in Singapore by accepting it. The problem is that the filings have to go to the CAD, which is part of the Singapore police authority, making it look like the reporting of a crime.

But unless clients have lied to MAS when sending the funds in the first place, they should have nothing to worry about.

The deputy commissioner of Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority, Mr Irwan Lubis, says that OCBC, UOB and DBS have sent reports about Indonesian customers to the Singapore authorities, but that the police will not process them because there is no crime to pursue.

There is a danger in letting these very public matters obscure the bigger picture.

Several bankers say there are far greater challenges to private banking here than 1MDB or the amnesty.

“The bigger challenge is financial disruption, which is already affecting fees,” Ms Tan says. “It’s a structural issue the industry has to learn to live with. The old, human model is changing and will continue to do so as wealth goes from one generation to the next.”

Mr Malhotra at JPMorgan says: “It’s no longer a business you can do with sub-scale operations: You need a full-fledged platform with middle office, back office, compliance and legal, the first, second and third line of defence.”

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


Call on Malaysians to return to the Rukunegara principles to unite as a people, regardless of race and religion, to fulfill Malaysia’s dream of greatness

I wish all Christians in Malaysia Merry Christmas.

Although I am not a Christian, I have been wishing Christians “Merry Christmas” for over six decades from my student days in Batu Pahat High School, just as I have wished “Selamat Hari Raya” to Muslims and “Happy Deepavali” to Hindus in Malaysia.

Was I wrong and had I any intention to subvert the faith of the Christians, Muslims or Hindus to their religions in making such felicitations to them on their festive days?

Of course not. Such an idea was unthinkable and even anathema, as it never entered into my remotest thoughts to subvert the faith of Christians, Muslims or Hindus by wishing them felicitations on the occasion of their religion’s holy days.

This is why I read with joy and appreciation the latest writing of the Johore Sultanah who said that “Going to church did not make me less of a Muslim when I was a young girl, and neither does saying ‘Merry Christmas’ make me less of a Muslim now”.

She wrote:

“My faith has not been shaken just because I wished some friends a time of joy with their families. Neither will I suddenly suffer from amnesia and forget what my religion is.

“What I do not wish to forget, however, is that there are good, kind people who are not of the same faith as me.”

She said she did wish to be “a self-centred Muslim who expects friends of other faiths to wish me Selamat Hari Raya or, for those who are not Malaysians and therefore do not know about Hari Raya, a Happy Eid and yet do not return their goodwill when it is Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Vesak Day”.

She said: “Every year, friends who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or those without any faith come to our home to celebrate Hari Raya with us. They do so with sincerity and as a mark of respect for one of the most important days in the Muslim calendar. Why should we not reciprocate their kindness, show them the same mark of respect for their religion and wish them the same joy on their holy days of celebration?”

In the past few years, Malaysians have lost their way to unite as a people regardless of race and religion, allowing hatred, extremism and intolerance a greater influence in our lives.

All Malaysians need to return to Rukunegara to unite Malaysians.

Rukunegara consists of two parts.

The first envisions the kind of society desired as stated in the following pledge:

“Our Nation, Malaysia, being dedicated – to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; to maintaining a democratic way of life; to creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; to building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.”

The second part outlined the five principles – Belief in God; Loyalty to King and Country; Upholding the Constitution; Rule of Law and Good Behaviour and Morality – embodying all the high values to mould a Malaysian society that is free from vengeance, envy and prejudice.

Malaysia would not be in the throes of a political, economic and nation-building crisis of confidence if we had not deviated from the Rukunegara principles – let alone becoming a global kleptocracy set on the trajectory to become a failed and rogue state.

Malaysians must find the way back to our high national purpose as envisaged by the Constitution and the Rukunegara, and there is no better way to begin this journey than on this Christmas Day on December 25 2016.

Let us return to the Rukunegara principles to unite as a people, regardless of race or religion, to fulfill Malaysia’s dream of greatness – the Malaysian Dream.

(Christmas Day Message  in Gelang Patah on Christmas Day, 25th December 2016)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 December 2016, 7:33 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Final tranche of questions for  Salleh after the Communications and Multimedia Minister admitted he is unable to answer the 35 questions directed at him

This is the final tranche of five questions for  the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak as he had admitted he is unable to answer the 35 questions directed at him in  the past seven days.

This means however that Salleh is unable to  reinstate his right to ask questions and to demand answers from others – having doubly  forfeited such right when firstly,  as  Minister responsible for the portfolio of information, he failed to answer numerous questions about government scandals and failings; and secondly,  failing to acquit himself when given a second chance to redeem himself when I put 35 questions to him.

Out of the 34 questions I have put to Salleh, 14 were about the international multi-billion dollar 1MDB kleptocratic money-laundering scandal and Malaysia’s international infamy and ignominy of having ascended to the exclusive club of “global kleptocracy”;  three questions about Malaysia’s second international infamy and ignominy for being excluded from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, regarded as the world’s school report, for data and sample bungling; four questions on the perfidy in UMNO and Barisan Nasional over Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355); three questions about the abuses of power and repression against critics and the civil society and  seven questions about UMNO’s exploitation of the extremist politics of race, religion, “Big Lies” and hatred to hang on to power in the forthcoming 14th General Election.

It speaks volumes that Salleh is unable to answer any of these important national questions.

I do not expect Salleh will be able to answer my  final tranche of five questions  which sum up my cross-examination of the Communications and Multimedia Ministker in the past week. The final tranche  is as follows:

Question 36:

On this Christmas Day, the  Sabah Council of Churches prayed for truth to prevail in Malaysia, referring specifically to the international multi-billion dollar 1MDB kleptocratic money-laundering scandal.

Will Salleh raise the Sabah Council of Churches prayer , the 1MDB and “global kleptocracy” issues at the last Cabinet meeting  of the year on Wednesday, 28th December 2016 as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s promise in his 2016 New Year Message that the 1MDB scandal had been resolved and was no more an issue had not been met. In actual fact, the 1MDB scandal is an even bigger international scandal today than 12 months ago.

Question 37:

The Sabah Council of Churches also prayed for truth to prevail on Hadi’s RUU 355 private member’s bill.

Will Salleh ask the Cabinet at its last meeting of the year on Wednesday to clarify without equivocation that if there is no Barisan Nasional consensus to support Hadi’s private member’s bill motion in the March meeting of Parliament, the Barisan Nasional Federal government will not take over the Hadi’s private member’s bill at any stage of the parliamentary process?

Question 38:

Will Salleh ask for the resignation of the Education Minister, Datuk Mahdzir Khalid for his inability to purge Malaysia’s international shame and infamy at being excluded from the PISA  2015 rankings for mathematic, science and reading for Malaysian students?

Question 39:

Whether Salleh would agree that it is precisely because the Prime Minister and the Cabinet  Ministers had deviated from the five principles and objectives of Rukunegara that the country is now facing an unprecedented political, economic and nation-building confidence crisis, as the 1MDB and PISA scandals and the  unprecedented plunge of the Malaysian ringgit would not have occurred if the government leadership had been faithful to the five principles and objectives of Rukunegara.

Question 40:

Whether Salleh would  propose in the Cabinet that there should be an end to  all the abuses of power leading to repressive  and undemocratic actions against government critics and the civil society,  such as selective police investigation and selective prosecution by the Attorney-General’s Chambers?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 25 December 2016, 5:04 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Education
,
Financial Scandals
,
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet should devote its last meeting of the year on 28th Dec to review how Malaysian nation-building took a wrong turn when Ministers strayed away from Rukunegara principles and objectives, resulting in the 1MDB scandal, Malaysia becoming a global kleptocracy and Najib’s very “ethnic nationalistic” speech as UMNO President

We are now in the last week of the year 2016.

Its time for reflection and introspection – not so much as to what went right but what went wrong in our nation as 2016 is an even worse annus horribilis for Malaysia than 2015.

A year ago, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his 2016 New Year message,  told Malaysians that his RM50 billion 1MDB and RM2.6 billion donation twin mega scandals had been resolved and were no more issues.

Najib could not be more wrong as Malaysia’s international repute and standing  suffered an even worse  battering  this year with the ferocious pounding of the twin mega scandals in the   international marketplace of opinion, to the extent that Malaysians felt embarrassed in admitting that they were Malaysians when abroad.

Malaysia was  cited for   the  third “worst corruption scandal of 2015” by international website foreignpolicy.com in the last week of last year, but we went on to accumulate more dishonours this year – like TIME magazine’s ranking  in March as second worst example of global corruption,  Economist’s ranking  in May as second in its index of crony capitalism and in July, the US Department of Justice (DOJ)’s  largest kleptocratic lawsuits to forfeit US$1 billion of 1MDB-linked assets in the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland from US3.5 billion international 1MDB kleptocratic embezzlement and money-laundering scandal.

These were not the only woes for the country for this year – as the country is going through  th worst crisis of confidence as evidenced by the worst plummeting in the value of the Malaysian ringgit and the worst racial and religious polarisation in the nation’s history.

What went wrong and how can we put the country right again, so that Malaysians can hold their heads high, whether at home or abroad?

I believe one important lesson  is that Malaysia would have been spared the international multi-billion dollar 1MDB  money-laundering scandal and the infamy and ignominy of being regarded worldwide as a global kleptocracy, as well as all the national woes we are suffering,  if the Government had not strayed away from the five Rukunegara principles and objectives.

For decades, our school children have been asked to recite the five principles of Rukunegara, viz:  Belief in God; Loyalty to King and Country; Upholding the Constitution; Rule of Law and Good Behaviour and Morality.

But sadly, the Ministers and government leaders themselves forgot to observe and honour these five Rukunegara principles and the Rukunegara objectives to achieve a greater  Malaysian unity; maintain a democratic way of life; create a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; ensure a liberal approach to our  rich and diverse cultural traditions; and  build a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.

Yesterday, at the annual Christian Federation of Malaysia Christmas hi-tea in Kuala Lumpur, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuik Paul Low said Malaysians must not allow ethnic nationalism to rise in the country, where one ethnic group says it is superior than the others.

This is another infamous example of Ministers uttering high-sounding words but have neither  intention nor political will to “walk the talk”.

Is Paul Low aware that the worst example of such ethnic nationalism rearing its ugly head is the UMNO presidential speech of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak less than a month ago  on November 30?

We do not even have to refer to the warning of a UMNO Youth leader to the Chinese community that they may be further alienated if they continue to support the DAP!

Did Low  ever express, whether in Cabinet or outside, his concern at Najib’s speech?

Low said that Christians need to be politically relevant and make their voices heard.

Last year, at the same function, Low said if the government was God-fearing, there would be no need for him to be in the Cabinet.

It was a cryptic speech, redolent with implications.

Was Low implying that the Najib administration was not a God-fearing one, which was why the country was inundated with so many political, economic and nation-building crisis?

Was Low the only “God-fearing” Minister in the Cabinet, and did he speak up last year and this year, to ensure that the Cabinet does not stray away fron five Rukunegara principles and Rukunegara objectives so as  not to lose the moral compass , whether over scandals like the 1MDB money-laundering scandal, Malaysia joining the club of “global kleptocracy” or the rise of ethnic nationalism of the most virulent and divisive kind as advocated by some  UMNO Ministers and  leaders?

Wednesday is the Cabinet’s last meeting this year. May be the Cabinet should devote its last meeting of the year on 28th Dec to review how Malaysian nation-building took a wrong turn when Ministers strayed away from Rukunegara principles and objectives, resulting in the 1MDB scandal, Malaysia becoming a global kleptocracy as well as the Prime Minister’s very “ethnic nationalistic” speech as UMNO President only last month!

(Media Conference Statement in Ulu Choh on Monday, 26th December 2016 at 10 am)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 December 2016, 6:43 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Iskandar Development Region (IDR) Growth Area and the Delimitation Process

The Iskandar Development Region (IDR), which encompasses at least 6 parliament seats, has seen significant development over the past 5 years with new residential, industrial and commercial areas sprouting up.

As a result, the number of voters in these 6 parliament seats have also increased significantly. According to the latest delimitation exercise, all of the seats in the IDR have at least 95,000 voters with P162 Gelang Patah topping the table at 112,081 voters as of Quarter 1 2016
(See Table 1 below).

Table 1: Number of voters in the parliament seats in the IDR, Quarter 1, 2016

Parliament Seat

 Number of Voters

P158 Tebrau         99,592

P159 Pasir Gudang  108,156

P160 Johor Bahru    98,351

P161 Pulai          95,980

P162 Gelang Patah  112,081

P163 Kulai          95,822

With the number of residents in the IDR expected to grow significantly in the next 10 years, it is expected that the number of voters will also increase commensurately. It won’t be surprising if the Gelang Patah constituency will have more than 150,000 voters in 10 years’ time. If this is the case, then the Election Commission should increase the number of parliament seats in IDR not just because of the high number of voters currently but also because of the expected increase in the number of voters in the near future.

I do not understand how the Election Commission can allow Gelang Patah to have 3 times more voters than Pagoh (36387 voters) and Labis (37568 voters) which is in total violation of the one-man-one-vote principle.

The upcoming High Court hearing in January 2017 on the case between the Selangor state government and the Election Commission on the last delimitation exercise will have an impact not just on the seats in Selangor but for the entire Peninsular Malaysia.

As long as the public enquiries for Selangor has not been completed, the Election Commission cannot proceed to the next stage of the delimitation exercise, as spelt out in the 13th Schedule, which is to publish the revisions in the delimitation proposal after the 1st round of public enquiries. This is because the delimitation proposal for Peninsular Malaysia has to be presented as one review representing all the states in states of Malaya (article 113 of the Federal Constitution).

If the High Court decides that the EC has violated constitutional principles in the delimitation of constituencies in Selangor, then those same principles can be applied to other states in Peninsular Malaysia, including Johor. As such, this upcoming court case will prove crucial in deciding the limits by which the Election Commission can abuse the democratic process in carrying out the delimitation of constituencies.

[Media Conference Statement (2) in Ulu Choh on Monday, 26th December 2016 at 10 am]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 26 December 2016, 7:04 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Johore
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Admission speech for Abdul Gani Patail — Christopher Leong

The Malay Mail Online

December 23, 2016

DECEMBER 23 — Dengan izin Yang Arif,

Saya, Christopher Leong hadir bagi pihak Pempetisyen, Abdul Gani Patail.

Rakan-rakan yang bijaksana saya Rozielawaty Ab Ghani mewakili pihak Peguam Negara Malaysia, Hendon Mohamed, 20th President of Malaysia Bar, mewakili pihak Majlis Peguam Malaysia dan Lim Chee Wee, 29th President of Malaysian Bar, mewakili pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur.

Yang Arif, saya dengan rendah diri memohon kebenaran untuk berhujah berkenaan Pempetisyen dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

My Lord,

As the days count down towards the end of what has been a challenging year for some of us and as the sun sets on 2016, we may look back to a few momentous or memorable events. I would include this morning’s proceedings as one of them.

It is my pleasure to rise this morning to move this petition for call to the Bar of my friend Abdul Gani Patail. As is the etiquette and long standing convention, we stand before the court shorn of titles, honourific and adornments save for the sombre attire reflective of the formal business at hand.

The Petitioner is no stranger to most of us. He has been a member of the legal fraternity in another life in another guise, in a manner of speaking. I will have more to say on this and will come back to it shortly.

Please permit me to present the Petitioner as a fit and proper person for admission and enrolment by saying a few words on his background.

The Petitioner was born on 6th October 1955 and hails from Lahad Datu, Sabah. His is married to the lovely Maimon Arif, and they are blessed with a daughter — Ra Delina Patail, son — Faezul Adzra Patail and four grand children — Aedan, Ziva, Dian and Juwita.

The Petitioner read law at University Malaya and graduated with a Bachelors of Law in 1979 and was also conferred by the University of Nottingham, my alma-mater, with a Doctors of Laws (Honouris Causa) in 2006.

The Petitioner was enrolled and admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak in Sabah in 1998.

The Petitioner had a long and illustrious career as a legal officer in the Attorney General’s Chambers wherein he served in the following roles:

From 1980 until 1994 — as a Deputy Public Prosecutor based in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah;

From 1994 to 1995 — as the Head of the Prosecution Division;

From 1995 to 1997 as the Head of the Advisery and International Division;

From 1997 to 2000 as the Commissioner of Law Revision;

From 2000 to 2001 taking a second tour of duty as the Head of Prosecution; and

From 2002 until 2015 as the Attorney General of Malaysia.

The Petitioner has therefore been the Attorney General for a good 13 years, with Abu Talib (1980-1993) tying that record, and surpassed in time served only by the first Attorney General of Malaysia, the late Abdul Kadir Yusuf who served for 14 years from 1963 to 1977.

As the Attorney General of Malaysia, the Petitioner was the principle legal adviser to the Government, the Public Prosecutor and effectively the head of the largest ‘law firm’ in the country. Suffice to say that he has advised the Government on innumerable matters, had undertaken and conducted numerous civil and criminal cases, and has dealt with a wide breadth of complex legal matters in both the domestic and international arenas throughout his years in service.

On a personal note, I first came to know the Petitioner many years ago in the 1990’s when he was serving as the Head of the Prosecution Division. We were introduced by a mutual good friend, the late Vong Poh Fah, who served in the Attorney General’s Chambers, and who later became my partner in the law firm in which I practise. We played golf together, badly at that, except for Vong Poh Fah who was a consummate sportsman. Thereafter, we spent time talking about going fishing in Sabah, with promises being made of a good time. I have yet to call on that promise but will do so shortly.

On a professional note, I had the opportunity to work with the Petitioner when he was the Attorney General and during my tenure as the President of the Malaysian Bar. What I can say in a nutshell, and in fairly polite language, is that the Petitioner was a ‘nutcracker’. It may come as a surprise for some to hear that the Petitioner could at times come across as hard as nails, aggressive, gruff, and a tough negotiator.

In reality, he was a consummate professional in his undertakings and in our dealings. In doing so, he can be firm, demanding and a hard counterparty with a no nonsense approach. We at times disagreed, argued, took hard opposing positions but always in mutual recognition of our respective roles and duties. When we disagreed, it was never personal always professional. On other times, we could find common ground and were collaborative in the furtherance of the administration of justice. We were adversaries and at the same time comrades in law.

From our interaction, I have come to know the ‘nutcracker’ to be a veneer. Underneath that veneer the Petitioner is human and humane, and a warm heart beats. I recall three examples.

On two different occasions, I had received calls late in the afternoon informing me that 2 death roll inmates were scheduled to be executed in the early morning the next day. I called the Petitioner on his mobile phone and asked for a stay of the executions. The Petitioner took it upon himself to act and had on the one occasion managed to convince the Sultan, and on the other occasion the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, to grant a stay warrant at the eleventh hour.

The Petitioner was the chairman of Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan, or YBGK for short. He took a personal interest in ensuring the success of YBGK. Prior to the launch of YBGK in 2012, more than 80per cent of impecunious persons charged in the criminal courts went unrepresented. Within a short period of time, YBGK in collaboration with the Malaysian Bar reversed those figures with 80per cent of such persons having access to legal advice and representation.

In the last few years, the Attorney General’s Chambers, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency and the Bar had several collaborations with regards to anti-corruption events or matters in Malaysia.

The Petitioner was a tireless, conscientious and diligent Attorney General. He clocked long hours each day. I recall that even when he was undergoing dialysis treatment at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital, he would conduct meetings in the hospital, and thereafter rush off to his office or to some other meeting. At other times, I would arrive at his office in Putrajaya and see a line of people waiting to see him.

I recall asking the Petitioner during a meeting with him at the hospital as to how he could maintain his pace of work. He cheekily pointed to the dialysis machine and said that it was a re-charging machine. He offered that I should try it. I politely declined.

This is the measure of the man. It was a pleasure for me to have worked with the Petitioner.

It was therefore news to some, a surprise to others and shock even to the more dramatic among us when it was reported that the Petitioner was no longer the Attorney General due to health reasons as at 27th July 2015. That however did not deter or slow the Petitioner down. He shortly thereafter turned a page and started a new phase. He filed his petition herein and commenced his pupillage under Ragunath Kesavan, the 28th President of the Malaysian Bar.

My Lord,

On this memorable day, the Petitioner would like to take this opportunity to record his gratitude to his former colleagues and friends at the Attorney General’s Chambers, Judiciary and the Bar.

Under the watchful eye of his master, Ragunath Kesavan, the Petitioner is ready to be called to the Bar in Malaya. The Petitioner appears this morning before this Honourable Court in a different capacity from which the Petitioner was accustomed to during the course of his long years in service. Although the event on 27th July 2015 was a blow for the country, the principles of good governance and accountability, and for the pursuit of truth and justice, there is a silver lining to that cloud. The Petitioner is seeking to remain a member of the legal fraternity. He is doing so by changing his standing and moving to the honourable profession at the Bar. In the words of Winston Churchill:-

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.”

The Petitioner will find that the fraternity and sorority at the Bar will not forsake him, indeed will stand by him so long as the Petitioner subscribes to the principles, duties and ethos as encapsulated in s.42(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976.

My Lord,

I verily believe that the Petitioner is not only a fit and proper person to be admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor of this Honourable Court; he is also sufficiently physically fit and healthy. I believe the Petitioner’s papers are in order and that there are no objections from the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee.

With that, I respectfully pray for Your humble Petitioner, Abdul Gani Patail, be admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.

[Judge grants order in terms]

I am much obliged. My Lord, the Petitioner’s Pupil Master, Ragunath Kesavan is present and I seek leave for him to robe the Petitioner.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 December 2016, 6:18 pm and is filed under
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Law Firms’ Accounts Pose Money-Laundering Risk

By RACHEL LOUISE ENSIGN and  SERENA NG

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Dec. 26, 2016

Hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly siphoned from Malaysian state fund 1MDB passed through firms’ pooled accounts in U.S., prosecutors say

Tens of billions of dollars every year move through opaque law-firm bank accounts that create a gap in U.S. money-laundering defenses, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

These accounts were used by suspects in a multibillion-dollar scandal involving a Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB, according to a Justice Department description of events. They also played a part in a Florida Ponzi scheme, in a case related to an official of Equatorial Guinea and in a dozen other U.S. money-laundering cases over the past decade, case records show.

Law firms lump together client money they are holding for short periods, such as while real-estate sales are pending, into pooled bank accounts, and the law firms face no requirement to disclose whose cash is in the accounts. Banks say they generally see only a law firm’s name.

Money often stays in the accounts for only a few days or weeks. At the request of law firms’ clients, funds can be sent from the accounts to other parties, with scant transparency.

While banks and other firms that move money across borders face heavy pressure to alert regulators to suspicious activity, U.S. law firms protect the confidentiality of their pooled accounts in the name of attorney-client privilege.

A Winding Money Trail

Money misappropriated from Malaysian state fund 1MDB was moved to the U.S. via law firms’ pooled accounts and used to buy and flip a condo, according to U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits. Here is how the DOJ said the money flowed.

The result is “a way of getting money into the U.S. system without going through the anti-money-laundering safeguards,” said Elise Bean, former chief counsel to a Senate investigating subcommittee that analyzed vulnerabilities in the banking system. It’s “a pretty darn big loophole.”

The Financial Action Task Force, a global group that sets international standards for anti-money-laundering procedures, has called the law-firm accounts a vulnerability. In a December report assessing American efforts to fight financial crime, the group criticized the U.S.’s limited oversight of lawyers, who are not required to flag suspicious financial activity.

American Bar Association President Linda A. Klein said the ABA supports the legal profession’s efforts to prevent misconduct involving client money. “Additional financial reporting requirements would be unnecessary and burdensome,” she said, because there are few examples of client trust accounts being misused.

Ms. Klein said the ABA has supported guidance to alert lawyers to suspicious situations and will continue supporting reasonable efforts to fight money laundering “in ways that minimize the impact on the attorney-client privilege” and clients’ right to effective counsel.

Most pooled accounts aren’t the law firms’ idea. Many state courts or legislatures mandate that lawyers combine small sums of client money and funds held only briefly, as a way to generate interest to fund legal aid to the poor. Most such accounts are called IOLTAs, for Interest On Lawyer Trust Accounts. Law firms hold certain other client money in individual clients’ names.

The pooled accounts typically contain money held for real-estate purchases, pending lawsuit settlements and prepaid legal services, but they can contain client money that a firm is holding for virtually any purpose, said Nabil Foster, a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in Chicago.

Hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly siphoned out of 1Malaysia Development Bhd., the Malaysian state fund known as 1MDB, passed through law-firm pooled accounts in the U.S., federal prosecutors said in lawsuits filed in July. Investigators in several countries say billions of dollars are missing from the Malaysian fund.

The Justice Department, in civil suits seeking forfeiture of assets allegedly bought with stolen 1MDB money, said law firms holding the money in their pooled accounts authorized transfers that were used to pay for luxury U.S. real estate, jewelry, and yacht and jet rentals.

Other transfers moved money from a pooled account to Las Vegas casinos and to personal bank accounts of individuals linked to the global 1MDB scandal, according to the lawsuits.

In one set of transactions, the Justice Department lawsuits said, Malaysian financier Jho Low, whom investigators consider a central figure in the alleged 1MDB fraud, wired $148 million from a Swiss bank account to law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP’s pooled account at Citibank in New York in October 2009.

Four months later, four bank checks totaling about $22 million were issued from the law-firm account to pay for a condo in the Park Laurel adjacent to Manhattan’s Central Park, the suits said. The buyer was listed as a British Virgin Islands firm called Park Laurel (NYC) Ltd.

That company sold the condo a couple of years later to an entity called Park Laurel Acquisition LLC. The lawsuits said that entity was controlled by Riza Aziz, the stepson of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak.

About $34 million for this second purchase of the condo was transferred to the Shearman & Sterling pooled account, according to the lawsuits.

They said the money came from a Singapore account held by a British Virgin Islands firm that Mr. Aziz controlled.

Next, a wire from the Shearman & Sterling pooled account sent a similar amount of money to an attorney trust account of another law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The Sullivan & Cromwell account, also held at Citibank, then wired $34 million to a bank account at Switzerland-based Rothschild Bank AG to pay Mr. Low, said the suits.

The Justice Department suits asserted that the cash for both purchases of the condo was stolen from 1MDB. The suits said companies controlled by Mr. Low and Mr. Aziz sent a total of $489 million into Shearman & Sterling’s pooled account from overseas.

The asset-seizure suits are civil actions filed against properties themselves, and don’t include any individuals as defendants.

Messrs. Low and Aziz both have denied any wrongdoing in the 1MDB matter.

Neither Citibank nor the U.S. law firms are accused of any wrongdoing. A spokeswoman for Shearman & Sterling said it was in compliance with legal and ethical standards and had no reason to believe funds might have been stolen. Citibank and Sullivan & Cromwell had no comment.

The predominant type of pooled client account traces back more than three decades to a cutback in federal spending on civil legal aid, said Randall Berg, a Florida public-interest attorney who helped set up pooled-account systems in several states to generate interest to pay for civil legal aid. Today, 46 states and the District of Columbia require law firms to use such accounts.

A rough estimate of how much money runs through them is possible from the amount of interest they generate, which was $78 million in 2015, according to an ABA information repository. In five large states that track data on the accounts, banks paid an average interest rate of 0.21% on them. Those figures suggest that nationally, law firms’ pooled accounts held an average balance of at least $36 billion over the course of the year.

Since money often stays in them for only days or weeks, however, the amount flowing through in a year could be much higher. The figures suggest that if money sat in the accounts for an average of three months, roughly $146 billion would pass through in a year, and if money turned over every month, the total passing through would exceed $400 billion.

The accounts appear to be swelling. In the five large states that track balances — California, New York, Texas, Florida and New Jersey — the law firms’ pooled accounts collectively held roughly $20 billion last year, which was up 32% from 2012. The growth is partly due to higher sales of real estate, including luxury properties, some lawyers say.

The confidentiality of bank accounts in general became a bigger issue after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when the government increased surveillance of the financial system. The legal industry fought hard to avoid being swept up in the extension of tough anti-money-laundering rules beyond bankers to other professions.

Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington University law-school professor and member of the ABA policy-making body, called the prospect of rules requiring lawyers to turn in clients “the single most alarming threat to attorney-client privilege anyone has seen in a long time.” He led the passage of an ABA resolution against them.

This year, the ABA successfully pushed for pooled trust accounts to be exempt from new federal rules requiring financial institutions to know the beneficial owners of accounts that are in the names of legal entities such as shell companies. People can effectively get around those requirements by sending money to their lawyers’ accounts for short periods, said Richard Gordon, a Case Western Reserve University law professor and former anti-money-laundering specialist at the International Monetary Fund.

American lawyers do face rules requiring them to keep records of client funds and forbidding them to knowingly aid illegal conduct. Investigators can ask law firms to turn over pooled-account records in connection with a case. The ABA has voluntary guidelines for lawyers to spot and prevent money laundering.

Lawyers in the U.S. don’t have to investigate client conduct unless they believe a client may be engaging in illegal activity while using the lawyer’s services, unlike requirements in other developed countries. In situations where a U.S. lawyer learns a client is engaging in nefarious activity, state rules vary on whether the lawyer would be required to report it to the government, said Hal Lieberman, a New York legal-ethics attorney.

Other attorneys said if the lawyers couldn’t persuade such a client to adhere to the law or end the possibly illegal activity, they should stop representing the client or risk being seen as facilitating the illegal activity.

Banks have occasionally faced sanctions for failing to detect money laundering carried out via pooled law-firm accounts. In 2009, investigators uncovered a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme run by a South Florida attorney, Scott Rothstein, who had done transactions through his law firm’s pooled accounts at the U.S. unit of Canada’s Toronto-Dominion Bank and at Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust, a small Florida bank. Mr. Rothstein pleaded guilty to federal crimes including conspiracy to commit money laundering.

TD Bank and Gibraltar were fined a total of $56.5 million for failing to have sufficient controls in place to detect and report the scheme, along with other lapses. Both banks declined to comment.

In another case, for years banks and regulators were suspicious of accounts opened by Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, vice president of Equatorial Guinea and son of the African country’s president. According to a U.S. Senate report, Mr. Obiang, often with the help of a lawyer, moved more than $100 million into the U.S. and deposited some of it in bank accounts used to pay for parking tickets, furnishings and other expenses. Investigators said they believed some of the funds were the proceeds of foreign corruption.

Some banks shut accounts linked to Mr. Obiang following internal reviews, but he continued sending money to his lawyer’s client trust account at Bank of America Corp., which had already closed Mr. Obiang’s accounts. In 2008, Senate investigators contacted Bank of America with concerns about the law-firm account, and it too was shut down, according to the Senate report.

Investigators at Bank of America had suspicions about the account but “made a judgment call” to keep it open because they believed the lawyer was using it to represent a client, a senior bank compliance officer told federal lawmakers in 2010, though he said the bank’s compliance procedures had since improved. Bank of America declined to comment.

The Justice Department in 2011 filed civil forfeiture complaints to seize U.S. assets Mr. Obiang purchased. They reached a settlement in 2014 to end the case. A representative of Mr. Obiang said he had no comment.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 December 2016, 3:12 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lawyers instructed to look into possibility of instituting legal action against New Straits Times for its lies in its report today: “DAP’s ploy to secure DPM post”

I have instructed my lawyers to look into the possibility of instituting legal action against New Straits Times (NST) for its lies in its report today:
 “DAP’s ploy to secure DPM post”
.

Among other things, the NST report said that I met Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on Dec. 3 and “sealed a deal that Mukhriz would become prime minister with Kit Siang as his deputy”.

This is total figment of imagination, as I never met Mahathir, whether on Dec. 3 or before to “seal a deal” on the question of PM or DPM if UMNO/Barisan Nasional is ousted from Putrajaya in the 14th General Election.  In fact, I had never at any time discussed such a question with Mahathir.

The report
“DAP’s ploy to secure DPM post”
is pure fantasy.

It is a mark of the times where moral and ethical standards have fallen so low in Malaysia, that even in the journalistic world, the maxim “Opinions are free but facts are sacred” have been totally abandoned by what was once the country’s premier national daily but which has become an unprincipled and opportunistic political party rag.

Is it any wonder that the circulation of New Straits Times have fallen so precipitously that that those responsible for running NST avoid the subject in public altogether.

A lot of lies about me and DAP leaders have been circulated on the social media in an anonymous manner, but a mainstream media must be taught a lesson when it sinks to the gutter level to dish out lies and falsehood spun out of whole cloth.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 27 December 2016, 3:46 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.