Thomas: Sanctioning Riza Aziz deal would’ve betrayed PM, Harapan’s trust

Former attorney-general Tommy Thomas has reiterated that he never sanctioned the settlement deal with film producer Riza Aziz as he would have betrayed the trust of the prime minister and the Pakatan Harapan government by doing so.

This was in response to his successor Idrus Harun who said yesterday that he acted upon advice that Thomas had agreed to the settlement terms “in principle”.

“Since Idrus is at pains to emphasise the weight he gave to my so-called ‘agreement in principle’, which itself is a fiction, let me state publicly that I would have never sanctioned this deal.

“I would have betrayed the trust the prime minister and the Harapan government had reposed in me,” Thomas said in a statement on The Edge today.

The former attorney-general also said Idrus’ statement that US$108 million (RM465.3 million) will be recovered from the settlement with Riza is a “red herring” as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has already returned “billions of ringgit” related to the 1MDB case, and “more monies may be released in future by DOJ”.

He said the DOJ would have returned the money in any event as it belongs to Malaysia and thus, Riza is not offering to pay any new money from any source other than DOJ seized assets.

“Thus, Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for returning monies that are not his. Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but terrible for Malaysia,” Thomas said.

Idrus also said yesterday he was advised that ad hoc public prosecutor in Riza’s case, Gopal Sri Ram, after consulting with former MACC chief Latheefa Koya, suggested the anti-graft body accept the deal by Riza’s lawyers.

When contacted yesterday, Sri Ram (photo) said: "The AG has spoken, and he has the final word on the matter. On our side, we can't comment anymore."

Riza (photo), who is former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s stepson, was accorded a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) last Thursday by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for his five criminal charges on allegedly receiving illegal proceeds from sovereign wealth fund 1MDB.

The producer of The Wolf of Wall Street and Dumb and Dumber To was charged last year for allegedly receiving a total of US$248 million (RM1.08 billion) on five occasions between 2011 and 2012.

Riza was accused of committing the offences by receiving the money through the bank account of Red Granite, the Hollywood production company he co-founded.

The deal, however, is dependent on him fulfilling the terms of the agreement reached with the prosecution, which among others, necessitates the return of an estimated US$108 million to the Malaysian government.

Below is Thomas’ statement in full:

1. As I have been mentioned on numerous occasions in the media release issued yesterday by my successor, Idrus Harun, I have to put the record straight a second time.

2. I took into account the benefits of the AMLA Act 2001 when I decided to charge Riza Aziz in July 2019 with 5 money laundering offences punishable under Section 4(1) of that Act for receiving proceeds of unlawful activities, between April 2011 and November 2012, totalling US$248 million of monies belonging to 1MDB.

I was satisfied that the prosecution had a very strong case to establish the ingredients of the offences. The documentary trail was substantial and highly credible. Upon conviction, the prosecution would have invited the trial judge to impose a sentence commensurate with the severity of the offences, the maximum being 15 years for each charge.

But more significantly, the criminal court is given power by Parliament to additionally impose a penalty up to 5 times the amount involved in the unlawful activities, that is five times US$248 million, which would work out to some US$1.2 billion. We would have sought this sum upon his conviction.

3. As public prosecutor, I personally decided to prosecute about 25 cases. In each of these cases, I was briefed by MACC or the police and dDPPs (deputy public prosecutors). I probed deeply. My decision-making process took time.

From my trial experience, evidence gathering continues from initiation of proceedings until completion of the trial. Only when I was satisfied that the prosecution could secure a conviction, did I make the decision to prosecute. It was always a deliberate and properly analysed decision. That same rigour was brought to the decision to prosecute Riza.

In none of these 25 odd cases, did I consider favourably a request by any accused to settle on such terribly poor terms to the prosecution. That would have called into question the wisdom and integrity of my decision to prosecute in the first place.

4. In paragraph two of Idrus’s media release, reference is made to a minute I made on Nov 19, 2019, to Gopal Sri Ram (photo) on the letter dated Nov 18, 2019, from Riza’s solicitors. That indeed was my style. After having read that letter, I wrote a couple of words or sentences to him. I have no access to the original letter with my handwriting. Because of this handicap, I cannot comment on it.

5. What is abundantly clear is that I did not make any decision in relation to Riza’s representation up to the date of my resignation, Feb 28, 2020. A decision of this importance involving billions of ringgit and significant public interest would be made by me in writing. I did not, and none exist.

6. With regard to communications with the two major actors, my successor and Gopal Sri Ram, the position is as follows. I have not communicated with Idrus since Feb 28, 2020. This is not unusual. I did not communicate with my predecessor during my tenure.

I spoke on a couple of occasions with Gopal Sri Ram over the telephone between Feb 28 and May 14, 2020, but this subject was never raised by him. Hence after my resignation, I was kept in the dark on this and all other matters.

7. In paragraph three of the media release, Idrus states that: “Malaysia is expected to recover approximately US$108 million”.

With the greatest of respect, this is a red herring. By personal diplomacy, we established strong relations with DOJ after I took office. They have returned billions of ringgit, and more monies may be released in future by DOJ.

The purpose of prosecuting Riza was not to strengthen our chances of securing monies from DOJ. DOJ would have returned these monies in any event because it belongs to Malaysia and was stolen from Malaysia.

Riza is not offering to pay any new money or monies from any source other than DOJ seized assets. The US$108 million, would, in any event, be returned by DOJ to Malaysia.

Thus, Riza is unnecessarily getting credit for returning monies that are not his. Hence, it is a sweetheart deal for Riza but terrible for Malaysia.

8. Finally, even the timing of Riza’s DNAA is bizarre. In both civil and criminal proceedings which proceed to trial, a plaintiff or the prosecution loses substantial leverage over the adverse party if it withdraws court proceedings before the terms of the settlement are completely performed.

This is elementary. Hence, one needs to question why Riza has been given a DNAA so prematurely.

9. Since Idrus is at pains to emphasize the weight he gave to my so-called “agreement in principle” (which itself is a fiction), let me state publicly that I would have never sanctioned this deal.

I would have lost all credibility in the eyes of the people of Malaysia whom I endeavoured to serve as public prosecutor to the best of my ability, honestly and professionally if I had approved it.

I would have betrayed the trust of the prime minister and the Pakatan Harapan government had reposed in me. - Mkini