Is all an eyewash an unforgivable sin in Apandi moral code:
It is common knowledge that the best way to argue your case in Attorney-General’s Chambers is through a suitcase. The capital’s punters can neither control their laughter nor restrain their envy at the news while corruption in Malaysia has moved with internet speed Unsurprisingly, which for a decade had no time for investigations Was the issue, then, greed or hypocrisy?where few claim to be paragons of personal virtue, the spa-story would have been a snigger on a news cycle.
Now that the last rites are being read over , Apandi perhaps it is time for an obituary.As the debate continues to swirl around attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali’s kind of mind believes , albeit with ebbing intensity, but still provoking a loose nerve or two, an intriguing question demands an answer. the link between 1MD and the donation must be investigated as there was “circumstantial evidence” surrounding the sum of US$681 million deposited into the prime minister’s bank account (was) within five days after 1MDB successfully raised US$3 billion in bonds in March 2013,
“And it shines a spotlight on Malaysia’s worsening democratic deficit, whether defined in terms of shady campaign finances, electoral manipulation and foreign interference, human rights abuses, weak and unreliable governance – or downright venality.”The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) also reported that the money was transferred into Najib’s accounts through a company with links to 1MDB. Tanore Finance Corp Limited transferred the funds through Falcon Private Bank in Singapore, a Swiss Bank owned by the International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) of Abu Dhabi, WSJ reported. “IPIC and its subsidiary, Aabar Investments PJS have in turn entered into various financial and joint venture agreements with 1MDB and SRC International Sdn Bhd involving billions of dollars. “No investigation over the source of funds of Najib’s multi-billion ringgit donations can be complete without investigating the overseas money trails of 1MDB, IPIC, Aabar, Tanore Finance and Falcon Bank,”
The Observer UK daily also called Najib’s immediate response urging Malaysians to move on, a”fantasy”.”widespread scepticism” to the A-G Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali’s findings that the RM2.6 billion donation from the Saudi royal family to Najib was above board, and to his declaration that the donation was a separate matter from other graft allegations involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).the Swiss say the amount involved was US$4 billion was moved around through their banking system.the transactions involved four companies – PetroSaudi, SRC, Genting/Tanjong and the Abu Dhabi Malaysia Investment Company (ADMIC).
1MDB remained the subject of investigations by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and by Swiss and Hong Kong authorities. “Apandi’s act of absolution” of Najib, therefore, had taken local investigators at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) by surprise, it added. Against a backdrop of worsening human rights abuses in Malaysia, the A-G’s decision had only heightened growing concerns about Najib’s leadership and whether he was fit to rule, The Observer said, referencing the latest report by Human Rights Watch.”His time in government, especially since the 2013 general election, has brought an expansion of repressive laws, multiplying human rights abuses and curbs on media freedoms more reminiscent of Russia than of a supposedly functional, pro-western democracy closely allied to Britain and the US,”
Najib says he has been vindicated and Malaysia must move on. This is fantasy. The scandal will live on in the minds of voters who have more reason than ever to distrust those who to lead them on the basis of privilege, wealth and inequality,” The Observer wrote.
“The question that we need to ask Tan Sri Apandi Ali is how did he satisfy himself that, even if the funds deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank accounts came from the mysterious Arab donor, the money did not originate from 1MDB?
Tan Sri Apandi has already concluded that there was ‘no necessity’ for Malaysia to make a request for an MLA to any foreign states to complete the investigation by the MACC in relation to the donation, US$681 million deposited into Najib’s personal accounts a donation from the Saudi royal family given “without any consideration” and closed the case. Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali cannot dismiss the possibility that US$4 billion (RM16.6 billion) of misappropriated funds by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) was part of the RM2.6 billion donation to Datuk Seri Najib Switzerland investigating 1MDB uncovered some US$4 billion (RM16.8 billion) from Malaysian state companies have been misappropriated. Swiss attorney-general Michael Lauber also expressed concern over his Malaysian count
There is no limitation period for criminal prosecution and Datuk Seri Najib Razak could still be charged if the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) finds new evidence on the RM2.6 billion donation and Finance Ministry-owned firm SRC International Sdn Bhd, lawyers said. MACC could still resume its probes into these cases and there was no law preventing it from resubmitting investigation papers to the attorney-general (A-G), who is also the public prosecutor, for his consideration to frame charges against Najib if fresh evidence emerged, lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad told The Malaysian Insider. It was within the MACC’s powers to decide whether to continue investigations and no one could direct them close their files, Amer added, when asked to comment on A-G Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali’s announcement last Tuesday that he would order the anti-graft agency to close investigation papers into Najib over the donation and SRC International.rt’s decision to stop investigations into the funds transferred into Najib’s accounts, saying the move could hamper Switzerland’s own probe into 1MDB. Apandi responded that the ongoing Swiss investigations into 1MDB were separate from the donation
Amer said there were instances where the Attorney-General’s Chambers initially decided to take no further of action but subsequently decided to charge the suspect on grounds there was new evidence. Another example, he said was former Internal Security Act detainee Yazid Sufaat and cafeteria worker, Muhammad Hilmi Hasim, who had their earlier charges dropped by A-G due to the emergence of fresh evidence. “A prosecution witness during cross examination by the defence disapproved the accusations that the two were promoting terrorism and were not members of a terrorist group. “The defence then wrote to the A-G who dropped the charges. Similarly, the A-G could frame charges if there are new developments,” he added. On Wednesday, Yazid, 52, and Hilmi, 36, were each jailed seven years for withholding information on terrorism activities in 2012 after they pleaded guilty to an alternative charge. Amer said the MACC in Najib’s case had a duty to continue investigations if they found new leads that strengthened their case. Since there was no time bar on criminal prosecution, the law also did not prevent a new public prosecutor to review the investigation papers, so long as the accused and relevant witnesses were available. Lawyer Mohamed Hanif Khatri Abdulla said Apandi was wrong to order an investigation agency to close its files and he had acted beyond his authority. “All Apandi should have stated is that he found insufficient evidence at this point in time to institute proceedings against Najib but has no business to order that there should not be further investigation,” the lawyer said. Hanif said nothing prevented a new A-G to review MACC ‘s investigation papers and institute criminal proceedings against Najib if there was sufficient evidence. Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said Najib’s case showed that the the A-G and public prosecutor could not not be the same person. He said the A-G was the legal advisor of the government and could be a member of the Cabinet. Paulsen said as public prosecutor, the people must have confidence in the person olding the position to serve public interest. “There must not be a whiff of controversy or partisanship. The public prosecutor must be seen independent,” he added. Former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman had also said that the A-G’s powers under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution was only to institute, conduct and discontinue any criminal proceedings. On Tuesday, Apandi said he was not pressing any charges against Najib due to insufficient evidence to implicate the prime minister, following close to six months of investigations by the MACC. But he also ordered the MACC to close three investigation papers; one on the RM2.6 billion donation and two on SRC International which had taken a RM4 billion loan from the Retirement Fund Inc or KWAP. Apandi also turned down a request by the MACC for mutual legal assistance so that the anti-graft agency could obtain information from overseas banks and financial institutions for its RM2.6 billion probe. The A-G said there was no need to pursue such assistance from other countries since no evidence of wrong doing was found.
READMORE The misadventures of attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali. to save Najib just wave a magic wand