Authorities have until May to verify seized jewellery

KUALA LUMPUR: The authorities have another six months to confirm whether 44 pieces of jewellery worth US$14.79 million (more than RM60 million) allegedly sent to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor by a Lebanese jewellery firm were seized.

Federal police Special Investigation Division of the AntiMoney-Laundering Team head Superintendent Foo Wei Min, in an affidavit, said police were not in a position to state on oath about the jewellery seized in a series of raids on properties linked to Rosmah’s husband, former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. This is because police have yet to conclusively determine if the 44 pieces of jewellery are part of the 12,000 pieces seized in May in the course of investigations, which are ongoing.

Foo said the task of identifying the jewellery was complex and protracted. He said he could only confirm that the seizure of the items was made under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.

He said if there was no prosecution or conviction in the 12month statutory period from the date of seizure, the public prosecutor could apply to the High Court for an order for the forfeiture of that property.

“Police have another six months until May 2019 to verify the items, with the assistance of an expert.”

The affidavit was filed on Tuesday by the government, which was the intervener in the suit brought by Global Royalty Trading SAL, a well-known jeweller from Lebanon, against Rosmah.

In yesterday’s proceedings, judicial commissioner Wong Chee Lin fixed Feb 11 for case management.

Counsel Datuk David Gurupatham, who represented Global Royalty, said the court had given more time to the authorities to confirm whether the 44 pieces of jewellery had been seized by police.

“Once we find out whether the police have actually seized the items, we will take instructions from our client,” he said.

Senior federal counsel Alice Loke, who acted for the government, said the items had yet to be identified since investigations were ongoing.

Counsel N. Rajivan, who represented Rosmah, was present during the proceedings.

The Beirut-based jeweller filed the suit on June 26, claiming that Rosmah, as its client, had borrowed pieces of jewellery and returned them. It claimed that as in previous years, the company would send a consignment of jewellery to Rosmah according to her demand for her to evaluate and purchase, and to be paid by her or a third party.

The company alleged that pieces of jewellery which were not chosen would be returned and that, at times, Rosmah would borrow the jewellery, and she or her agent would receive them in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore or Dubai.

It claimed that a handover memorandum would accompany the jewellery consignment, describing the terms and conditions.

The company said it had, on Feb 10, sent 44 pieces of jewellery, including diamond necklaces, earrings, rings, bracelets and a tiara, each costing between US$124,000 and US$925,000.

It claimed that Rosmah, in a letter dated May 22, acknowledged receiving those items in writing and that they were no longer in her custody as they had been seized.

The terms and conditions included the delivery and return of the jewellery, and that the title of the jewellery remains with the consignor.

In the suit, Global Royalty sought a declaration from the court that it was the rightful owner of the 44 items of jewellery. It sought a mandatory order for the items to be returned or, alternatively, if those items could not be returned, that Rosmah pay the amount based on the value of the jewellery.