Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak has cried foul over Dr Mahathir Mohamad's veiled suggestion that the discharge secured by filmmaker Riza Aziz was wrong.
Najib was referring to Malaysiakini's recent interview with Mahathir in which the latter referred to Riza's case, without naming him, as his example of how the rule of law had broken down.
"We can see now that if you return one stolen chicken, they would say 'okay, you can keep the other 10'. This is the new law," said Mahathir.
Under the terms of the settlement for Riza to be discharged from a money-laundering trial, the filmmaker would have to forfeit assets worth US$108 million.
According to Najib, who is Riza's stepfather, Mahathir's analogy was not correct.
"This is not a case of stealing 11 chickens and returning one as claimed by PM7 (Mahathir).
"This is a case of receiving 11 chickens and returning 13," he said.
Najib claimed that Riza would eventually have to return US$40 million more than the US$248 million received for his film projects.
The breakdown, according to Najib, is as follows:
- US$107 million to settle the case in Malaysia;
- US$60 million that has already been paid to the US in a forfeiture suit brought by the Department of Justice;
- US$120 million to the "sender" before any civil suit was filed against Riza.
While Riza's settlements in Malaysia and the US were a matter of public record, it is unsure who Najib meant by "sender".
Riza (photo) is the co-founder of Red Granite Pictures, a company incorporated in the US, which produced Oscar-winning "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Dumb and Dumber Too" and several less memorable titles.
Red Granite Pictures was alleged to have received money from Good Star Limited (incorporated in Seychelles) and Aabar Investment PJS Ltd (British Virgin Islands).
Collectively, the companies had received money from 1MDB between 2009 and 2012. During the material time, Najib was prime minister, finance minister and head of 1MDB's advisory board, with the company's constitution clearly defining his authority over all investment decisions and financial commitments.
Nevertheless, based on his account of how Riza handled the fallout, Najib said Mahathir was a liar.
"Riza received the invested funds with a proper agreement and his records on the repayment of interest and principle because his film projects were successful.
"Riza was not bailed out by the government nor was he given government contracts similar to the children of 'PM7', nor did he buy companies through sweetheart deals from PM7's cronies.
"Riza has all the records and evidence. That is why (former attorney-general) Tommy Thomas and (ad hoc prosecutor) Gopal Sri Ram agreed to settle the case," he said.
What Najib said about Thomas is not a matter of public record. After the settlement, Thomas, who was no longer the attorney-general, publicly objected to the settlement.
Meanwhile, Najib said unlike Lim Guan Eng (photo), Riza was not charged under the Penal Code nor the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.
He stressed that unlike Lim's case, the hearing for Riza's money laundering trial did not have a single hearing date.
"Lim's case was withdrawn although the hearing took place over a month with more than 10 witnesses having given their statements.
"If PM7 wants to incite the people, he should be honest. Do not constantly lie to the people and slander (us)," he said.
Lim was acquitted of charges of graft involving the acquisition of a bungalow from businessperson Phang Li Koon below market valuation in 2015.
Phang was accused of doing so as gratification for Lim in exchange for the conversion of the status of a plot of land, owned by a company in which she had an interest in.
Before the acquittal, the court had already heard from 25 witnesses. One witness testified that the duo struck a deal in 2013 while another witness said he had lodged an MACC report based on what he read online.
In September 2018, then Attorney-General's Chambers appellate and trial division head Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria explained that he had decided to withdraw the case against Lim due to "weakened" evidence as a result of the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
"I concluded that as a result of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses who have testified... the evidence supporting the first charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 and under Section 165 of the Penal Code was substantially weakened.
"This conclusion was arrived at in light of fresh evidence that arose during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses," said Hanafiah.
Despite Lim's acquittal, Najib had repeatedly cited Lim's case as an example of how the then Pakatan Harapan government did not respect the rule of law. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.