‘BUNGALOW NOT LINKED TO 1MDB CASE’
Property owned by Jho Low’s mum purchased before 1MDB was even set up, says her counsel
THE High Court was told yesterday that a threestorey bungalow in Penang owned by the mother of fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho @ Jho Low had nothing to do with the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.
Counsel M. Puravalen, who represented Low’s mother Puan Sri Goh Gaik Ewe, said there was nothing to show the property was purchased or funded by misappropriated money or illegal proceeds.
He said the bungalow in Tanjung Bungah Park was purchased before the sovereign wealth fund was even established.
Puravalen said this during submission in the prosecution’s 1MDB-linked forfeiture application against Goh and 17 others, which included former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Najib’s family as well as several individuals and companies.
He said the bungalow erected on two plots of land was purchased by Goh, 69, back in 1990.
Referring to the sale and purchase agreements of both plots of land, Puravalen said the documents clearly showed that the registration of transfer occurred on July 11, 1990 and Aug 4, 1993 respectively, and that Goh was the registered owner to date.
“There is nothing to explain how the property is related to any illegal proceeds. The prosecution has failed to establish any facts explaining the involvement of the property in the predicate offence or any unlawful activities.”
Thus, he said the bungalow should not be a subject matter of the forfeiture proceeding.
On the monies in Goh’s three bank accounts which also became the subject matter of the forfeiture action, Puravalen said there was no documentary evidence showing that the deposits in the accounts were acquired from illegal transactions or procured through illegal activities.
He said the prosecution lacked explanation and substantial evidence to support their allegations that the bank accounts were the subject matter of the offence concerning the misappropriated 1MDB funds.
“There was also an absence of any linkage or explicit explanation to show that Goh was involved or participated in any illegal activities,” the lawyer said.
Among the deposits which were the subject matter in the application were RM328,418.32 on Oct 13, 2016; RM340,704. 64 on Nov 11, 2016 which was marked as “credit advice”; RM360,000 on Jan 21, 2017 which was made in Goh’s Hong Leong Bank Bhd account; RM33, 649. 58 on March 13, 2014, and RM36,631.07 on May 7, 2013 which was marked as a “private transaction”.
He said the applicant had left unexplained their contention that these monies which were deposited into the bank accounts of Goh originated from illegal sources or were subject matters related to the commission of an offence.
Puravalen said there was also nothing to link Goh to the money laundering allegations.
He added that no money trail or movement of money was described by either of the investigating officers in the case, namely Assistant Commissioner R. Rajagopal and Superintendent Foo Wei Min, to support their contention that the deposits in question were from criminal activities.
The hearing before judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan continues on April 23.
On May 8, 2019, the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers (A-GC) filed a notice of forfeiture over hundreds of items, including branded handbags and 27 vehicles seized from 18 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 Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, 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 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) of the AntiMoney Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act or as the result of illegal activities involving the respondents.