YOURSAY | Who is telling the truth – SC or Azam?

 

YOURSAY | SC’s explanation opens a new can of worms for Azam.

SC unable to conclusively establish SICDA breach in Azam Baki case

SC: No proxy trading found as Azam controls own trading account

Dr Raman Letchumanan: The probe by the Securities Commission (SC) only came about because MACC chief Azam Baki, in his defence to the whistleblower’s expose, said the shares were bought by his brother using his account. This was a violation of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act (Sicda) if established.

If SC says there is no conclusive evidence that section was violated, then by inference, Azam is the beneficial owner by legally trading in his own account.

Therefore, Azam lied to the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board that his brother used his account to buy the shares and the shares belonged to his brother.

Consequently, the claim by Azam that he had transferred the shares to his brother is also suspect. If he had indeed done that, Azam probably wanted to exonerate himself from explaining how he had the means to buy the shares and was in violation of civil service regulations.

So, it is back to square one on the conflict-of-interest charges. Furthermore, it now appears Azam seemed to lie to escape any further probes. As I see it, the SC decision only leads to further investigation on possible violations of other laws and regulations.

Sun: What the heck does this mean? The law says you have to open an account if you want to buy or sell shares. Azam's brother did not. And Azam claimed he allowed his brother to use his account. So, a breach clearly occurred. But the SC cannot say so “conclusively”?

This reminds me of the Azmin Ali case. The co-actor admitted he was the one with Azmin, but face recognition technology was inconclusive. Fine. I cannot debate that. But what about the testimony of the co-player? Not valid?

RedWolf4463: Azam tried to deflect the wrongdoing by saying the money belonged to his brother, thereby invoking a violation of SC regulations.

So now the SC says that the account was under the control of Azam, thereby pushing the guilt back to the MACC chief.

Did the SC call up the brother for a statement? Did the MACC call up the brother for a statement? Did the police call up the brother for a statement? Did any of the authorities call up the brother to determine once and for all whether the shares belong to Azam or his brother?

It’s either you are guilty of violating the MACC regulations or guilty of violating the SC regulations. Plain and simple.

GanMu: When SC made its first statement, I was disappointed with SC, as I held it in high esteem in the belief that it was the public's watchdog and will act professionally as it is one of the few agencies left that we can count on.

I am delighted that finally SC got out of the "spell" and told the truth that Azam was the beneficial owner of the shares. This would mean that to SC he admitted that the shares were his own, thereby contradicting his press conference made earlier that the shares belonged to his brother who used his account.

Now the ball is in Azam's court. The public would like to know why he lied to the public? With this public lie, how will he be able to win their confidence as head of the anti-corruption agency, where truth, honesty, integrity, professionalism of the highest order, etc, are crucial in carrying out his duties.

Tyrion Lannister: Everyone with an account has full control over their account even if they allowed someone to buy shares using their account. They are fully aware of what's going on with their account. Don't they receive transaction slip each time there's a transaction?

What SC is avoiding is to say Azam allowed his brother to buy shares using his account. That's illegal.

Now, Azam has to explain how he got so much money to buy so many shares? Where did the money come from? Follow the money trail!

Kawak: The SC appears to be so naive in its investigation.

Azam is apparently claiming the funds came from his brother. He bought the shares for him under his CDS (Central Depository System) account. On record, of course, he had purchased them under his name. There is no infringement of the SC law.

Simple investigative technique just requires the tracing of the money trail on the source of funds. If the funds came from his brother, SC can conclude that Azam was a nominee.

Vijay47: It boggles the mind that agencies and personalities entrusted with the good governance and administration of the country should blatantly, arrogantly, make decisions that completely contradict even minimal measure of honour and integrity.

They seem unconcerned that each excuse they come up with is worse than the previous, that their conduct has earned universal contempt and derision. Perhaps such approaches are understandable when survival is at stake.

Alarm bells must have been ringing furiously that the SC’s absolution was actually tantamount to a condemnation of the poor boy in the dock.

Desperately, SC comes out with its latest statement, a winner by any count. It piously announces that Azam did not carry out any proxy-trading, he was always lord and master of his account.

BusinessFirst: We now have the MACC chief giving two different versions to two different organisations.

Common sense dictates that unless an explanation is given to clarify such inconsistencies, then one version is untrue and action must be taken immediately.

While certain politicians and special envoys believe that lying can be religiously compliant, the head of the MACC must be a person of impeccable standing. If this is not clarified, then either he resigns or is removed.

Further, if it is true that he has lied, then his deputies who backed him have also made serious errors of judgement and need to be replaced as well.

FairMind: So, MACC Advisory Board, how? Previously you exonerate Azam because you accepted his explanation that his share trading account belongs to his brother.

Now that the SC has concluded that Azam had control over his account and had used it for trading. Are you going to retract your exoneration and re-investigate or just remain silent like before?

The next step is for an independent investigation on whether Azam has violated the civil service rules that a civil servant cannot hold more than RM100,000 worth of shares and the sources of the fund for the purchase of these shares previously. - Mkini