On the matter of the RM 2.6 billion donation: If Appandi & BBC's Frank Gardner are right,Najib may be guilty of breach of trust, and being an accomplice to a theft



by Ganesh Sahathevan


When Malaysia's Attorney General The Very Learned Appandi declared PM Najib not guilty of gratification with regards that RM 2.6 billion donation he said :

Evidence obtained from the investigation does not show that the donation was given as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in relation to his capacity as a prime minister....furthermore, in August 2013, a sum of US$620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Yang Amat Berhormat PM to the Saudi royal family because the sum was not utilised."

Elsewhere Najib and his ministers have asserted that the "donation" was held on trust for UMNO and/or Barisan Nasional, In addition the BBC "expert" Frank Gardner, whose version of events is supported by UMNO ministers reported:

The $681m (£479m) deposited in the bank account of Malaysian PM Najib Razak by Saudi Arabia was to help him win the 2013 electionsa Saudi source says.Malaysia's attorney general cleared Mr Najib of allegations of corruption on Tuesday after ruling that the money was a donation from the Saudi royal family.Mr Najib had denied that the money came from state investment fund 1MDB.The Saudi source said the donation was made amid concern in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood."There is nothing unusual about this donation to Malaysia," he said. "It is very similar to how the Saudis operate in a number of countries."A British corporate investigator with extensive experience of the Middle East told the BBC that the $681m was paid through the Singapore branch of a Swiss bank owned by the rulers of Abu Dhabi.



Taking all of the above together ,what appears to have happened is this:

a) The Saudi Government gave PM Najib close to USD 700 million for which he was to act as trustee

b) Regardless, Najib "returned" most of that money to someone, via Singapore

c) In doing so ,he breached his duty a a trustee .He was meant to use the money for the election and/or other purposes, not "return" it.

d) Whoever he returned it to is guilty of theft. Put simply, once something is given away ,it is no longer yours. If you take it back from a trust, even one you created , it could be theft.

It all depends on the terms of the trust, but given what is on the public record, it does not look as if the donor wanted his money back.

If the money was "returned" to someone other than the original donor, say, a princely son of the donor, then the theft is even easier to establish.

In either case, PM Najib would be an accomplice to the theft,which given what we known so far, took place in either Malaysia or Singapore.

END

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more