ʻNO LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR BILLIONS IN NAJIB’S BANK ACCOUNTSʼ
Prosecution could not find any reasonable justifications, DPP tells court
THERE is no logical explanation on how billions of ringgit purportedly embezzled from 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) ended up in the bank accounts of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the High Court heard.
Deputy public prosecutor Faten Hadni Khairuddin said based on affidavits, the prosecution could not find any reasonable justification as to why the former prime minister’s bank account, especially the one ending with numbers “694”, received huge amount of monies.
She submitted this during the hearing of the government’s forfeiture application over hundreds of items, including branded handbags, watches, several properties, other assets and 27 vehicles seized from Najib, his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor and their three children, as well as 13 individuals and companies.
The only explanation provided by Najib was that the money was a donation from the Saudi king, but there were no other further clarifications.
“Looking at all the affidavits, there is no logical or reasonable explanation as to why the accounts, especially ‘694’, received such huge amounts of money other than the first respondent (Najib) saying that it was a donation from the Saudi king,” she said.
In explaining the money trail, Faten said based on investigations conducted by investigating officers Assistant Commissioner R. Rajagopal and Superintendent Foo Wei Min, Najib had received the monies, which were allegedly embezzled from 1MDB, in three stages through his ‘694’ account.
“The first stage is through the company Good Star Ltd for US$120 million, the second stage is through Aabar (Investment PJS) for US$170 million and lastly, through (an entity called) Tanore for US$681 million.
“Based on investigations, the total (in the three stages) was the amount of funds misappropriated from 1MDB and supporting evidences showing money trail, such as receipts and proof of transfers, were provided in an affidavit,” she said.
Faten said despite more than RM2 billion of the said amount being returned to Tanore, the balance of the money was paid out to various business entities, political parties and individuals.
There was also no reasonable explanation why the monies were consciously returned back to Tanore, she added. She also said that part of the money had also gone into Najib’s AmBank account ending with the numbers “1880”.
By the looks of the entire thing, Faten said these were tainted money.
“There was no explanation to show how the monies, which were received, used and paid out were not a form of money laundering.
“We are talking about big amounts here.
“We are talking about an account that has a single signatory consciously signing all the cheques receiving hundreds of millions, if not billions,” she said.
Faten added that Najib had filed an affidavit stating proof of payments via cheques, but there were individuals receiving the cheques without a reasonable cause.
The hearing before judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan continues on April 1.
On May 8, 2019, the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers filed a notice of forfeiture over hundreds of items, including branded handbags and 27 vehicles seized from Najib, Rosmah, their three children, and 13 individuals and companies.
In addition, money amounting to more than RM18 million in several accounts at Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd, Al-Rajhi Bank Bhd, Malayan Banking Bhd, CIMB Bank Bhd, RHB Bank Bhd, Public Bank Bhd, AmBank Bhd and Hong Leong Bank Bhd was frozen between Aug 16, 2018, and March 11, 2019.
It named Najib as the first respondent, followed by Rosmah, Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, Nor Ashman Razak Mohd Najib, Nooryana Najwa Mohd Najib, Mohd Kyizzad Mesran, Senijauhar Sdn Bhd, Aiman Ruslan, Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia, Yayasan Semesta, Yayasan Mustika Kasih, Rembulan Kembara Sdn Bhd, Goh Gaik Ewe, Ng Chong Hwa, Lim Hwee Bin, Kee Kok Thiam, Tan Vern Tact and Geh Choh Hun as the second to 18th respondents.
The application was filed on the grounds that the prosecution, acting under Section 56 (1) read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was satisfied that the items seized between May 17, 2018, and March 11, 2019, were related to an offence under Section 4 (1) or as the result of illegal activities involving the respondents.