These days, not a day passes without two key words being in the news – “pardon” and “corruption”, which are inexplicably connected in the Malaysian context.
One party in the unity government - Umno is touting a pardon for its former president, a convicted felon – Najib Abdul Razak.
The other – Pakatan Harapan, especially its leader, Anwar Ibrahim is on an anti-corruption initiative.
Anwar has said that he would be “neutral” in the pardon application because he sits on the Pardons Board, by virtue of being the de facto Federal Territories Minister.
The same words used in his anti-corruption vitriol were absent leading to speculation if there had been “deals made” to get Umno to prop up his unity government.
And to add fuel to the further, the court granted a postponement to Deputy Prime Minister and Umno president, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to enable him to make representation to the attorney-general despite the prosecution having proven a prima facie case.
Whatever the outcome of the cases of two Umno presidents – present and past – there will be no dearth of critics and observers saying “I told you so.”
Leaving this aside, the question is: Are our anti-corruption laws in sync with the fast pace of developments in the financial world?
What was then a few ringgit just as duit kopi (coffee money) subsequently became a culture in which any transaction with the government needed a few hundred or few thousand to grease the palm of civil servants.
Now it seems that it is an entitlement and runs into millions - as we have heard as evidence presented in several cases in a court of law.
Many countries have laws pertaining to unlawful or unexplained wealth. Some have a provision that it is an offence “to have assets or lead a lifestyle that is disproportionate to the declared income.”
Others like the United Kingdom introduced a regulation called the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) in January 2018.
Among others, the UWOs require the owner of an asset worth more than £50,000 (RM274,063) to explain how he or she was able to afford that asset.
In the first-ever case in the UK, officers from the National Crime Agency (NCA) took Zamira Hajiyeva to court for having acquired property with unexplainable funds. She is the husband of jailed Azerbaijani banking fraudster, Jahangir Hajiyev.
According to court records, she spent more than £16 million (RM87 million) in Harrods between September 2006 and June 2016.
She also had two properties worth £12 million (RM65 million) in posh areas of London.
After a series of court battles, the court ordered that £22 million (RM126.6 million) of her assets be seized.
Previously, little could be done by the UK authorities to act on highly suspicious wealth unless there was a legal conviction in the country of origin.
In cases where the origin country is in crisis or the individual holds power within a corrupt government, this was unlikely to be achieved.
Previously law enforcement agencies needed to prove in court that an asset was purchased with laundered funds.
UWOs shift the burden of proof away from prosecutors and onto the asset’s owner and give the powers not only to seize the assets but also powers to prosecute.
This was what I wrote in 2018:
“This is the weapon that the Malaysian government needs to seize and repatriate millions of ‘dirty money’ ringgit which had been laundered through property purchases in the UK and the purchase of expensive jewellery and paintings.
“The UWO not only applies to monies stolen from 1MDB but also government funds misappropriated by government officials, businesspersons and politicians using proxies and nominees.
“It is apparent that Malaysia needs similar legislation to combat corruption and money laundering. The announcement last week by Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng is welcome indeed.
“We want to get the government’s money back, this is why the attorney-general is studying this provision introduced in the UK,” he was quoted as saying during a dialogue session in Penang.
“For years, anti-corruption advocates had pleaded with the government to introduce a clause in our anti-corruption law which ‘makes it an offence for anyone to lead a lifestyle or have assets disproportionate to his or her declared income.
In jest, I added: “The pleas were rebuffed for obvious reasons. The cynics said that if there was such a law, three-quarters of MPs on the then government bench would be in jail.
“If senior government officers were to be included, they quipped, a new wing would have to be built in Sungai Buloh!”
Now that Anwar is in full throttle on anti-corruption, such an Order will certainly help in bringing culprits to book.
UWO would allow for the confiscation of property without proving criminality, by reversing the burden of proof. The accused must prove that he or she acquired assets lawfully.
It is such a useful tool to be used in Malaysia. The MACC can go after minor politicians who wear expensive watches, live in “places” and drive Ferraris and Maserati. They should be ordered to explain their source of wealth.
If no plausible explanation with proof of income is provided, just seize their assets.
The MACC Act makes provisions for such orders without having to go to Parliament.
Section 71 (2) of the Act states empowers the minister to make regulations or rules for the further, better and more convenient carrying out of the provisions of this Act, and may make regulations or rules for the form of any notice, order, declaration or other matter under the Act.
Mr prime minister, you have been shouting yourself hoarse about corruption. The UWO is a good “weapon” in your zeal and enthusiasm to fight corruption.
Unless there is no political will to go about it, we are all doomed. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN joined the Bar Council and a few like-minded citizens nine years ago to bring about amendments to ill-gotten wealth. Sad to say, we never got anywhere. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.