Bank Negara did not seek clarification on 1MDB remittances, says A-G

Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali says Bank Negara Malaysia did not seek clarification over 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) remittances. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Kamal Ariffin, October 13, 2015.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) today explained its decision to clear 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) of making inaccurate declarations related to overseas investments, saying that Bank Negara Malaysia had not sought enough information from the firm to show that it had broken the law.

Neither did Bank Negara direct Deutsche Bank Malaysia Bhd to advise 1MDB to revert to the central bank for a review of the remittance permission granted, Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said today.

Speaking at a press conference, the A-G said this clearly showed that there was no further information requested by Bank Negara at the material time.

"1MDB rightfully furnished the information required for the purpose of the remittance," he said.

Apandi was referring to three permissions obtained by 1MDB from Bank Negara to make remittances on September 29, 2009, September 6, 2010 and May 20, 2011.

Bank Negara did not take more than three days to grant the said permissions on all three occasions, he said, reading from a press statement.

He added that the relevant forms for the remittances in this case had not required the applicant to state the bank account number and beneficiary.

As far as 1MDB was concerned, it needed to fill up the relevant forms and respond to the queries by the central bank.

"If Bank Negara does not request for certain or specific information, how could 1MDB be faulted as it has filled up the form as required and responded to the queries made," Apandi said.

He added that the 1MDB officials at the material time during the process of obtaining the permissions had complied with the directions given, and so the central bank's approvals were granted.

Apandi said that until and unless it could be shown that the officials had deliberately or recklessly provided false information in material particulars, they had committed no offence under the Exchange Control Act.

- TMI