Citizen Nades - Lost and found
LET'S say that Mr A has amassed assets through corrupt ways. The long arm of the law cannot touch him because he had supposedly covered his tracks.
But there's a clause in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 which allows for seizure of his assets.
Section 41 allows the public prosecutor to apply to the court to forfeit the assets if it can be proven that these assets were acquired through corrupt means. In this case, Mr A can oppose the forfeiture by providing evidence that he had gathered the assets through lawful means. The judge, based on the evidence before him, will decide to grant the request or reject the application.
In the past, the MACC has seized assets belonging to corrupt officials and other enforcement authorities have seized millions using this clause and the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.
Money laundering is a global problem and Malaysia is one of the 36 members of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), an inter-governmental body established in 1989. Its primary responsibility is to develop a worldwide standard for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing.
It works in close cooperation with other key international organisations, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, and other regional bodies.
Last year, the Washington-based financial watchdog Global Financial Integrity (GFI) said Malaysia stands at No. 5 in the world with an illicit funds outflow of US$291 billion.
But an earlier GFI report in 2012 prompted a crackdown on illicit outflow of money. The quantum was challenged. The claims were debated and denied but one useful issue that came out of it was that money changers came under watch.
In the aftermath, the crackdown started. The illegal ones were prosecuted; the legal ones lost their licences. None of those fingered was charged although there was evidence that some politicians sent up to RM7 million without going through the official procedures.
Therefore, all countries including Malaysia keep a close watch on the movement of money in and out of their shores. More so now because of the IS threat and their funding.
So much has been written and said about what happened across the Atlantic last Wednesday. There are various views and opinions expressed, depending on which side they take, at times, some of their thinking borders on the ludicrous. It serves little purpose in reproducing what the US authorities said or the local reactions because the social media is full of them.
This columnist wants to put the cards on the table. No spicing up, no editing but to tell it as it is. The seizure of assets belonging to individuals or corporate bodies is nothing new. It happens regularly in many countries. Malaysia is no exception. Bank Negara's website has a list of those who have been charged or convicted for money laundering and related unlawful activities.
Early this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) returned about US$1.5 million to Taiwan that came from the sale of a forfeited New York condo and a Virginia home bought with bribe money paid to the family of Taiwan's former president.
The DoJ had alleged in civil forfeiture complaints that Yuanta Securities Co Ltd paid about US$6 million in bribes to former First Lady Wu Shu-Jen in 2004, when her husband Chen Shui-Bian was president.
The bribe was intended to ensure that the president would support Yuanta's bid to buy a financial holding company.
Therefore, the move by the DoJ to seize assets belonging to two Malaysians – Jho Low and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's stepson Riza Aziz – and another – is another routine exercise carried out by US authorities. And they are going through the processes.
Let me put it plainly minus the legalistic language. This is not a criminal case, not even a civil suit as suggested by certain quarters. It is a civil filing for seizure of assets. Period. But the matter does not end there. As the DoJ has indicated, investigations are continuing and there could be other forms of action and this does not preclude criminal charges.
In this instance, the parties named can go to court and make their stand and prove that the sources of funds for those assets were not from the sources cited by the DoJ. Since it has produced voluminous documents on the supposed ill-gotten gains, those fighting the forfeiture must show documents to prove that these funds came from legitimate sources.
But the court will only accept plausible explanations. The source of money being a gift has already been pooh-poohed by the DoJ. The US courts may be willing to accept that you received an ang pow of RM10,000 as a wedding gift or a similar amount as pak kam for a funeral. But giving almost RM1 billion as a "gift" for "friendship" may be a bit difficult to swallow.
As for 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), it proudly claims the company is not under investigation and that it has no assets in the US. Right and wrong.
Right because the company has not been cited in the filings; wrong because money from the company has allegedly been routed to accounts which it had no connections with.
Right because the company has not been cited in the filings; wrong because money from the company has allegedly been routed to accounts which it had no connections with.
Whilst foreign governments are actively recovering the assets to return to Malaysia and its rakyat, 1MDB is still adamant that none of its monies have been misappropriated. How could that be when the report of the Public Accounts Committee says otherwise? So, if this is the case, will 1MDB go to Washington in defence of these "innocent" men?
R. Nadeswaran continues to keep a close watch on people's money lest it ends up in someone's personal account. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com
Comments
Post a Comment