YOURSAY | ' It is as if a thief stole something and then left behind a note saying he did not steal anything. '
FellowMalaysian: The almost identically-worded gift letters is a giveaway clue that that those involved had at some material time, collaborated in a grand sordid scam.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) must have included the text of these two letters in the 136-page affidavit with intent to use them to support their prosecution.
Roger 5201: To say, "All the artworks gifted to you should not in any event be construed as an act of corruption since this is against the company and/or my principles and I personally do not encourage such practices in any manner whatsoever," is a disingenuous invitation for any idiot to investigate.
Only a lawyer with dubious principles would write like that.
Cogito Ergo Sum: The similar wordings suggest that the same hand wrote it. Or it could be a new Word template for those contemplating covering up corruption.
Whatever it is, as more and more is unravelled, it is clear that the perpetrators where not very careful.
Anonymous 2336891439170985: Any gift to the president or prime minister of a country is always given to the state, and not meant to be for his personal use.
Just A Malaysian: In the company I work for, any personal gifts over US$100 must be returned or passed on to the company. It does not matter if there is a letter to state no favour is expected.
Only a moron will stand by such an argument and walk around with a straight face.
Anonymous 1890491455255851: The DOJ, I believe, did not accept the 'gift' defence due to the evidence of how the monies went to PM Najib Razak's stepson Riza Aziz's account.
Yes, anyone can write a letter and for that matter, anyone can pretend to be the donor.
I can't even imagine anyone would go to the trouble of writing how the money will travel to get to the PM's account before landing in the PM's account. Who would do that?
And now we know that the same amount claimed to be a donation, matched exactly in quantum the amount from the US$3.5 billion raised in a US bond issue. Come on!
Wira: Of course, we could see the similarity in the letters because those "donation" letters were very likely prepared by the same culprit.
Unafraid: Desperate men resort to desperate measures to try to extricate themselves. In the process, they make fools of themselves.
And to think that our own law enforcing agencies with so-called learned lawyers heading them all declare that there is no crime committed is unbelievable.
I have come to the conclusion that not only are the desperate crooks moronic, they also attract morons to back them up.
Headhunter: Most of us have had the experience of giving or receiving gifts. But I bet no one ever received the gifts accompanied by such declaration letters.
No matter how they try to cover it, the evidence of a scam is scattered all over for anyone interested to find it.
Existential Turd: It is as if a thief stole something and then left behind a note saying he did not steal anything.
Only the certified mentally ill could believe such tall tale.
SusahKes: The auditor is duty bound to ensure that solid documentary evidence is available to validate the accounting transactions, at the time of the audit. Isn't that part of the auditing standards?
What was exposed by the DOJ is a very material piece in determining if 1MDB's accounts reflect the figures truthfully, erroneously, or fraudulently.
And much of what the DOJ investigated and reported had to do with the bond proceeds, which was originally purported to be transferred to Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund International Petroleum Corporation’s (IPIC's) subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS.
A simple check proved otherwise; that Aabar BVI (British Virgin Islands) was not a subsidiary of IPIC.
I feel, it should have been the auditor's responsibility, to verify that transaction, especially since it is material. They could have easily requested a confirmation from IPIC. Or checked the banking instruction/transaction slips.
Did they then, do that as part of their audit evidence gathering?
Telestai!: "In the ruling on United Kingdom's Caparo Industries plc vs Dickman, he (chartered accountant Koong Lin Loong) said, the House of Lords ruled that the conventional auditor had no obligation to pursue an error in a company."
Koong, while it is true that auditors are not expected to be bloodhounds, they are however expected to watchdogs that will notice the elephant in the room.
The elephant, in this case, being the unverified existence of proceeds of the multiple bond issues - to the tune of billions of dollars. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.