Yoursay: AG must appeal 'illogical' RM192m forfeiture suits ruling

YOURSAY | 'The verdict sets a dangerous precedent to thieves and their proxies.'

Court throws out RM192m 1MDB forfeiture suits against Umno, MCA

Ipoh Pp: By this court ruling (in which High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan threw out the RM192 million 1MDB forfeiture suits against Umno and Wanita MCA), if I had stolen money and spent it, then I don't have to worry.

This ruling says one does not have to make good the stolen money. Great, so next time robbers can steal your money, spend it and they don’t have to be punished for it.

Vijay47: I am sure that all Malaysians would glow with pride also as they stand in rapt admiration of this landmark decision by Mohamed Zaini.

To put things in perspective for the benefit of those who may not be well-founded in law, a simple analogy would be of a band of rogues that had funds of, say, RM200 million. To this amount is added an additional dubious amount of RM200 million.

The band of rogues then makes merry and spends RM200 million. The government obviously has no claim (to the RM200 million that is still left in the account) when the group has explained that the questionable sum has already been expended. What could be clearer than that?

This milestone ruling by Mohamed Zaini will reverberate through every hall where the law and money clash. I can well imagine taxpayers successfully arguing that the Inland Revenue Board cannot seek outstanding taxes when the original income has been depleted.

Only in Malaysia, folks, only in Malaysia.

PB: Why is this ruling wrong? Because money is fungible - “being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account”.

Each of its parts is indistinguishable from another part.

You cannot segregate one source of cash from another. Thus, if Umno and MCA indeed received illicit funds, well, they received illicit funds and must pay it back regardless.

Anonymous_1543475877: I am puzzled by this judge's reasoning. How can you claim that all that money has been spent and what is now in the account is different? Money does not have any marks to show whose money it is.

Since Umno had received money from former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, presumably from 1MDB, the money has to be returned. Freezing the party’s account was a correct move.

The Wakandan: The judge has erred in his judgment. The fact that Umno admitted having spent the money from 1MDB, all RM212.97 million of it, this should be considered as proof that they are liable.

The money, therefore, should be recovered and Umno as an institution should pay for it since they had spent it already. They can sell their assets, which can run into billions, to raise the money and return it to the government.

I don’t know what the judge had in his mind but this verdict does not bode well for the current money laundering trial of Najib, his Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Co.

The next presiding judge would be bound by this decision. Is this a foreshadowing of the thing that is yet to come? God save us.

Anonymous_7d1ca773: Judge, your statement that “there is nothing left of the money deposited by Najib in the (Umno) account”, adding that “the RM212.97 million has long been spent" indicated that you acknowledged the source of money was via kleptocracy.

Yet, you disagreed with the forfeiture. The verdict sets a dangerous precedent to thieves and their proxies.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers must appeal till every sen of the allegedly stolen money is recovered.

JusticeNow!: The logic of this judgment is absurd. Just because the money is spent, it does not exonerate the people who spent it.

We have many thieves who steal power and communication cables and sell them to scrap metal dealers. These scrap metal dealers know very well the cables are stolen goods. In fact, they would even encourage the thief to steal.

Applying this judge's logic, the scrap metal dealer need not be accountable.

And by the same logic, the Umno branches can continue to urge and encourage their president to allegedly steal more government money and distribute it to them so they can spend the money because they will not have to pay it back.

Then, the people who help other people launder their money through their accounts can also claim that they spent it because they, too, don't have to be accountable for it.

Cyclonus: I guess it might be difficult to prove the money is from 1MDB but we all know how business deals have been made in the last 40 years or so.

Political patronage and rent-seeking in Malaysia is synonymous to wealth extraction for the politically connected.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not kosher money.

Legit: What the hell is happening? The ruling says there is no harm done if someone has spent stolen money or illegally obtained money. It just beats me.

So is this judge going to say that Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, has already spent her alleged corruption money and whatever left now is legal and hers to keep?

Simon: Indeed, I fail to understand the logic behind this decision. If there is proof that Umno has received the money, which belonged to 1MDB, from Najib, then Umno is obliged to return the money, immaterial of whether the money has been spent or not.

Based on the judge's decision, I can steal a billion ringgit and declare that I spent it and I can get away scot-free. This is the most moronic decision that I have heard.

Odysseus: Does this judgment also mean money obtained illegally can be legitimised if it is already spent?

So, all crooks should quickly buy houses, fast cars, Birkin bags and jewellery to cleanse their wrongdoings.

Thank you, judge. Crooks will love you for this. - Mkini