Vijay47: We should appreciate MACC head Azam Baki sharing with us insights into the inner workings at management levels of his anti-corruption agency, at least since former MACC chief Latheefa Koya left the scene.
Thus, we have MACC being guided by information gleaned from lesser officials in other government bodies – I believe deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) are a dime a dozen at the Attorney General’s Chambers. This is understandable, especially if no other differing facts are available.
However, in the present situation, former attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas has, for the first time since he resigned as AG, come out with a statement setting out briefly the history of the case surrounding the alleged plea-bargaining with regard to the charges against former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s stepson, Riza Aziz.
In particular, Thomas has strongly denied that he had come to any agreement to withdraw charges against Riza.
For his part, Azam insists that he will stand by what the DPP had told him. If you wish to accept the word of a junior officer against that from the chief, I would imagine you have such a right.
But in the face of Thomas’ denial, one would have expected you to have said something along the lines of your initial awareness of the matter being from a DPP, but now in view of the protest from Thomas, you would need to study the issue further.
You did not, Azam, you repeated that you stand by your statement.
To the man-in-the-street, there seems something unsavoury about the whole arrangement – steal a billion, make a deal, and laugh all the way to the bank with half the loot.
Worse, is this a harbinger of things to come? Are we soon going to have a spate of decisions where prosecution against crooked political leaders will be discontinued as the original charges against them were “politically motivated”?
I wonder what that DPP has to say about this.
Ata: Who is the DPP (who was involved in the case and had told Azam that Thomas agreed to the plea bargain)? Can we get his side of the story?
And what about ad hoc prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram? Did he not verify the truth about the agreement? I cannot believe that he would have proceeded without a rational explanation/reason.
Is this going to be the playbook for all the other 1MDB-related cases? Return some of the money and it’s all ‘kau tim’ (settled), followed by handshakes all round?
Coward: Azam, is it really that difficult to pick up the phone and ask Thomas personally about it and not rely on the word of an unnamed DPP?
Even if Thomas agreed, as head of MACC, you have a say and at least can reverse his decision.
You are not expected to do what the former AG asked you to. So stop hiding behind an ex-AG and state clearly why your agency had agreed to the plea bargain.
If it was agreed by your predecessor whose decision, unlike Thomas’, you are expected to carry through the agreement, say so.
If it is indeed Thomas’ decision, pass the hot potato to his successor to handle. Don’t take the blame for things you cannot be held responsible for, and don’t hide behind someone if you are.
CH Y: What utter nonsense. Once the new AG has assumed his duties 2.5 months ago, all high profile and big cases involving substantial sums should have obtained the current AG’s approval. What has this to do with the previous AG?
Do you mean Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin is still carrying out what was decided by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the new finance minister is carrying out what was decided by former finance minister Lim Guan Eng?
Just Wondering: Neither MACC nor Thomas should be embroiled in it, especially MACC since their statements are based on hearsay and their comments about hundreds of million being recovered contradict the several million stated by Gopal Sri Ram.
I am really perplexed by MACC wading into this issue which is purely the AGC’s domain. Even if Thomas agreed to it, which I doubt, the ball would always be in the new AG’s court.
Gerard Lourdesamy: So the MACC acts on the hearsay of a DPP and does not get written confirmation from the AG himself? God help us.
Can Azam explain to the public why a 50 percent haircut was given to Riza as part of the deal? We are dealing with the proceeds of an alleged crime here and not a civil debt.
Sick of Politics: @Gerard Lourdesamy, it’s a big sum of money which the country needs. What do you get from putting this bit player in jail?
And maybe the case against him wasn’t very good. We don’t know what led to them accepting the settlement.
Anyway, Gopal Sri Ram is no crook, he’s been hard on Najib and Rosmah Mansor. Stop wildly speculating in the worst way about what happened here.
Ali: What happened with Riza was a plea bargain. It happens all the time in the US, UK and other established countries.
Rather than wasting taxpayers’ money with a lengthy trial, if the government can recover some funds, it would be sensible to convert the prison charge to a compound or negotiated settlement.
In this case, the government is slated to recover RM400 million, something much needed if we are to survive the coronavirus-induced economic downturn.
The chances of success in winning the actual case by the prosecution might also be a factor. They may not have the necessary evidence considering most of the allegations took place in the US so there is also a jurisdiction issue.
Let’s not jump to conclusions that something sinister had happened behind the scenes. There are plenty of other factors which must also be taken into account.
Milshah: This is a high-profile case involving the biggest kleptomaniac scandal in the history of the country and the world – the 1MDB scandal. There should not be any plea bargain.
If Aziz is innocent, he will be freed; if he is guilty, he should be punished. Simple. That is what the rakyat want.
Instead, we get a “dismissal not amounting to acquittal” provided some of the allegedly stolen money, not all, is returned. Is that justice? – MKINI
Explain former AG’s denial’
KUALA LUMPUR: Senior lawyers are calling on the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to explain the contradictory statements between the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and former AG Tan Sri Tommy Thomas (pic) over the case of film producer Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz.
Senior lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said AG Tan Sri Idrus Harun should clear the air of any negative perception and protect the good name of the rightful parties.
Haniff said it was “unhealthy” to have such a blatant contradiction and denial left unchecked.
“This can scar the integrity and position of those involved, whether Thomas, the appointed prosecutor (in the case) Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram or the MACC, ” he said.
On Thursday, the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal on five counts of money laundering involving US$248mil (RM1.25bil) by a Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Following the court’s decision, the MACC said the government was expected to recover overseas assets worth an estimated US$107.3mil (RM465.3mil) from an agreement between the prosecution and the accused.
It also said that the agreement, through representation to the authorities, was a decision considered and agreed by Thomas.
Thomas, however, denied this in his statement to an online portal.
“I resigned two and a half months ago and up to that point, there was no agreement to drop charges against Riza. So, it is wholly untrue and a fabrication to say that I had agreed to the decision.
“I am terribly disappointed that the MACC had to make this false statement, ” he reportedly said.
Senior lawyer Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu said Thomas should lodge a police report and file a civil suit over the matter.
“There are action plans available to Thomas to clear his name. The MACC is bold enough to make a statement. Surely, they have a concrete foundation, ” he said.
On Riza’s discharge, Baljit said under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution and Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the public prosecutor had wide discretionary powers to discontinue any proceeding at any stage of the trial before the court made its judgment.
“The order of a discharge not amounting to an acquittal does not prevent the prosecution from charging Riza again based on the same facts and the plea of double jeopardy as provided under Article 7 of the Federal Constitution does not apply, ” he said.
Riza, 43, claimed trial to the charges in July last year.
The money, believed to be misappropriated from 1MDB funds, was said to have been wired through five transactions into two bank accounts belonging to Red Granite Productions Inc, a film production and distribution company based in Los Angeles which Riza co-founded.
According to the charge sheets, the sum – US$1,173,104 (RM4.8mil); US$9mil (RM37.1mil); US$133mil (RM549.2mil); US$60mil (RM247.7mil) and US$45mil (RM185.8mil) – was allegedly channelled from Good Star Ltd and Aabar Investments PJS Ltd into the bank accounts through wire transfers.
Good Star Ltd is linked to fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low, who is a central figure in the 1MDB scandal.
Riza was accused of committing the offences at City National Bank, Los Angeles, and BSI Bank Ltd in Singapore between April 12,2011 and Nov 14,2012.
The charges were framed under Section 4(1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which carries a fine not exceeding RM5mil or imprisonment not more than five years, or both, upon conviction. – ANN
MKINI / ANN
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.