MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku



Sunday, April 30, 2017

Why pay IPIC, again, when 1MDB did no wrong?

YOURSAY | IPIC says, ‘Looks like me, sounds like me, but not paid to me.’
Vijay47: 1MDB insists that it had paid the US$3.5 billion to Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), making the payment through Aabar BVI, an IPIC subsidiary. But IPIC says, "Looks like me, sounds like me, but not paid to me."
Thus, 1MDB holds talks with IPIC and in view of "the greater picture, Malaysia's relations with Abu Dhabi", it generously accepts IPIC's argument and agrees to pay that US$3.5 billion all over again.
Enter the dragon, local hero Finance Minister II Abdul Johari Ghani who says that he has a document confirming that IPIC is indeed related to Aabar BVI. But mysteriously, he keeps quiet about this, until the latest deal is signed and delivered.
Maybe the letter was written by the same Arab who wrote PM Najib Razak's "donation OK" letter. Then strange characters like Putatan MP Marcus Mojigoh enter the scene, fighting strange battles for the Big Boss.
So tell me, Johari, is this how you play poker, closing your four aces when the other guy shows two pairs?
Mushiro: If there was such a letter confirming that Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) is a legitimate subsidiary of IPIC, then there is no way 1MDB could have lost in the arbitration.
A total of US$3.5 billion is involved, so why should 1MDB give in so easily if they had concrete evidence. Assuming that the money has been wrongly banked into Aabar BVI, why was there no attempts made by 1MDB to demand for the return of the money.
Is this a question of once wrongly banked in, it becomes the property of the wrong person?
SusahKes: Let's break this new 'revelation' by Johari into simple English:
1) There is a letter from the British Virgin Islands (BVI) Registrar confirming Aabar BVI is a subsidiary of IPIC.
2) That fact alone would have been sufficient for 1MDB to claim the upper hand when negotiating the settlement with IPIC.
3) IPIC, on the other hand, claims otherwise - that this Aabar BVI is not its subsidiary, and that they did not receive the US$3.51 billion.
4) Now, Malaysia’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) must assume liability arising out of the US$3.51 billion bonds.
5) That means a bailout using taxpayers' money.
6) To win a negotiation, you need an upper hand. It was clear from the terms of settlement, that IPIC had the advantage.
7) That is, in spite of the letter that Aabar BVI is not a subsidiary of IPIC.
8) As they say, when you go in naked to meet your creditor, he will squeeze your gonads and get you to acquiescent to his terms.
9) Therefore, the elephant in the room remains - what the hell is Aabar BVI, and who set it up? And who arranged to transact with it?
Prudent: If the letter confirming that Aabar BVI is a legitimate subsidiary of IPIC is genuine and signed by IPIC management, then 1MDB has a strong case.
If this is the case, IPIC is stopped from disowning the letter since it was signed by their senior managers who were reasonably believed to be authorised to sign such letters.
Even if they are not authorised to sign, 1MDB is not affected as 1MDB is legally not concerned by the internal management of IPIC for such letters.
But if it is just a confirmation by the Registrar of Corporate Affairs of the BVI, then 1MDB does not has a strong case since it is only a third-party confirmation and may carry a disclaimer notice.
Now, is this so?
Kim Quek: Johari, the letter presented by Arul Kanda to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) confirming the bogus Aabar BVI as subsidiary of IPIC could be issued by the very crooks from the genuine Aabar to allegedly swindle 1MDB in conspiracy with Jho Low.
These two top Aabar executives - Khadem Qubaisi and Mohammed Husseiny - who were also the founding members of the bogus Aabar BVI, are now in jail in Abu Dhabi mainly for having played a rogue role in these 1MDB thefts, for which both have become fabulously rich.
These gargantuan, multi-billion heists were spread over a long period, and none of the top Malaysians involved with 1MDB, who themselves were major beneficiaries, could pretend ignorance.
Our problem is not the lack of information on criminal evidence, but the lack of political will. And unless there is a regime change, such virtual mega daylight robbery looks set to continue to expedite the downward spiral of this country.
Commentable: I’m wondering if this "letter" is a newly improvised excuse deflecting the issue why 1MDB had so foolishly paid out so huge sums to a bogus entity. If the letter already existed, why wasn't this brought out in the first place and why wait till now?
The only thing that could have wilted Johari's "confidence" for a winnable case is that the letter turned out to be a fake. It's suspicious for someone to seek a confirmation letter from the Registrar of Corporate Affairs of the British Virgin Islands via its letter dated Aug 11, 2016.
Won't it be like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? Why not seek confirmation before the first payment was made? Indeed why not seek a letter of confirmation cum indemnity directly from IPIC right at the start?
These are some of the troubling questions that Johari needs to address.
Anonymous 2436471476414726: Johari, we will give you the benefit of the doubt that there is indeed such letter. However, whether it is genuine or fake is another matter.
The nagging question for the rakyat is what action did 1MDB take on first learning that IPIC had disclaimed that Aabar BVI is not its subsidiary company. An honest government would have scrambled all its resources to get to the truth and perhaps try to retrieve the money already paid.
From what we know, 1MDB did nothing and pretended everything is hunky dory. This only lends credence to the belief that 1MDB knew what they were doing and fraudulently remitted the funds to the fake Aabar company.
Dizzer: These people are not stupid, although they are ethically and morally 'challenged'.
Of course, they all know what happened (and I don't just mean the principal characters but the whole Umno machinery, Bank Negara, Attorney-General's Chambers, etc) but because everyone is implicated, nobody can blow the whistle.
Shakespeare (as always) hits the nail on the head: Datin Seri Macbeth to her husband, Dato' Seri Macbeth - "What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?"
Telestai!: The name and the bank account details of the party receiving the payment must be specified in the loan/guarantee documentation, which is signed by authorised signatories of parties to the agreement.
Any variation to the terms of the agreement such as a change in the payee must be authorised by the signatories of all parties in a supplemental to the main agreement.
The paying party in the agreement cannot rely on the confirmation of the Registrar of Corporate Affairs of BVI nor a letter from an officer of the receiving party (as the officer may not be authorised to issue the instruction).
What is said here is 101 in loan documentation and is not nuclear science. When 1MDB paid the monies to Aabar BVI, it did so either recklessly or fraudulently, and hence 1MDB has no case against IPIC.
Grey Matter: Indeed, shouldn't the confirmation if Aabar BVI is a subsidiary come from the holding company? If monies owed to IPIC is to be paid to a third party, wouldn't it be normal to receive an indemnity from IPIC.
This is the minimum standard acceptable in the banking sector. If without such letters, I would clearly say that the Prime Minister’s Department (PMO) and MOF were complicit in this fraud.
FairMind: Johari, what steps have you taken to recover the money that had been wrongly paid?
Or will you treat the money wrongly paid to the BVI company as belonging to the wrong person, like in the case of SRC?
An agreement is made between A and B. Even if payments are requested to be paid to a subsidiary company C, it is common standard practice that an indemnity and confirmation is requested from A, it's holding company. Why wasn't this adhered to?
It's not like RM100 or RM1,000 which have been paid to a wrong person or company - it's billions of ringgit!
FellowMalaysian: It is suggested here in this write-up that barely a year after taking office as finance minister II, Johari has since distanced himself from the government's dealings in 1MDB when he announced that “1MDB's matters are now handled by PMO”.
I believe Johari is sincere and honest enough to declare that “I will only reply to questions from Tony Pua if I have the facts”; this suggest some degree of openness and sincerity in him, which is something hard to come by among Umno heads these days.

He will have to make a tough decision soon, whether he has the courage to defend his own beliefs and conscience or to let someone else displace him in carrying out his rightful duties and responsibilities.- Mkini

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.