1 MDB's 3-tiered governance raises presumption that advisors, directors, CEO, were aware of funds flowing from company to chairman's personal accounts

by Ganesh Sahathevan
The issue of the Sarawak Report, WSJ expose of  a movement  of some USD 700 million in funds  from 1 MDB to the private accounts of Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak is highly emotive but as I have mentioned in my prior post, 1 MDB and the  PMO's initial responses leave open the door to other plausible but no less damaging allegations.

Since that post, the Attorney-General of Malaysia has all but confirmed  the substance of the SR and WSJ stories; that is that there has been a movement of funds from 1 MDB to the  private accounts  of Najib Razak.

Consequently, given that 1 MDB has a three-tiered system of governance the company, its advisors directors and its CEO Arul Kandasamy must all be presumed to have had knowledge of the transactions referred to. Given the sums involved,given the quantum of  the liability or liabilities, real and contingent, that have arisen as a result of the transactions, denial raises questions of negligence, fraud, or both.
Arul Kandsamy's "1MDB is not aware of any such transactions, nor has it seen any documents to this effect" suggests very poor management , if not willful negligence. Once again, the Attorney-General of Malaysia has all but confirmed  the substance of the SR and WSJ stories and the existence of the documents ,at leats some of which emanate from 1 MDB.


It should be remembered that the 1 MDB denail was made when the PMO itself said: "The prime minister has not taken any funds for personal use."  The PMO's statement did refer to the 1 MDB denial,but when it is Najib Razak himself who is at both ends of the series of transactions, the 1 MDB denial and that of Arul Kanda must be considered somewhat hollow.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sydney is not Soweto, its Asian migrants are not coloureds, or persons of colour - South African Australian Judge Angus Morkel Stewart's decision in Faruqi v Hanson an insult to anyone who is not white

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan  In the recent Federal Court Australia decision in   Faruqi v Hanson   Mr Justice Angus Morkel Stewart (Stewart J)  found at [242]: I am comfortably satisfied that both groups of people in Australia that I have identified, being persons of colour who are migrants or of relatively recent migrant heritage and persons of colour who are Muslim, are reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended (ie profoundly and seriously), insulted, humiliated and intimidated by Senator (Pauline ) Hanson’s tweet. The case concerned   a tweet  that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson directed at  Deputy Greens leader Senator  Mehreen Faruqi. Mehreen is Pakistani Muslim who continues to advocate for Pakistan as a senator of the Senate, Parliament Of Australia.  Senator Hanson wrote in her tweet "piss off back to Pakistan" after Senator Faruqi commented on the death of Queen Elizabeth II. While Stewart J's has hand...
Read more

Ex NSW LPAB Executive Officer Louise Pritchard ,subject of queries from The Australian, hired by Sydney University since early 2019 -NSW LPAB has never explained her departure, UYSD the reasons for her appointment

Image
  by Ganesh Sahathevan  In January 2019 The Australian reported:  The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise. Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel. Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inqui...
Read more

Strata managers' aversion to contact with tenants can leave strata managers exposed to personal liability

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Advice for living in, or buying into, a strata community Strata managers are employed to manage strata schemes which are often home to renters as well as owners. However, in evasion of that which they are paid to do there are instances where strata managers have attempted  to evade their duties by refusing to  deal with tenants.   Even this writer can recall an instance where the strata manager warned that it was against the law for tenants to contact him directly.  The instances where strata managers have refused to deal with tenants occur when the issues raised concern fairly pedestrian maintenance issues, for example blocked plumbing and the like. Having said that, tenants do actually have a legal right to a great many things, including being informed (and presumably make representations) when strata schemes consider re-development. Strata managers who seek to stand in place of strata committees  are even more e...
Read more