Ganesh Sahathevan

by Ganesh Sahathevan The Malaysian Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Hasan Arifin has publicly rejected information provided by the country's Bank Negara concerning the money laundering activities of a Seychelles incorporated company shown to be owned one Low Taek Jho , better known as Jho Low. The evidence that Hasan has rejected concerns Jho's laundering of funds misappropriated from the sovereign wealth fund 1 MDB (see stories below). Bank Negara is, among other things, charged with the administration of the country's money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws, which in turn are part of the international AML/CTF framework of supervision and enforcement to which Malaysia is a signatory. The evidence rejected was obtained by Bank Negara from the relevant authorities in Singapore, the Seychelles, and probably other jurisdictions. Hasan's rejection of Bank Negara's advisory , made public by the Wall Street Journal, puts those

by Ganesh Sahathevan Switzerland's Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA made little if any attempt to hide its disgust  at the manner in which funds from Malaysia's 1 MDB were funneled via BSI AG. It also made clear it had little time for the Malaysian story that the country and its leaders are especially favored by billion dollar gift bearing  Saudi kings and princes. To quote FINMA: In one case involving a deposit of 20 million US dollars, for example, the bank was happy to accept the client's explanation that the funds involved were a "gift". In another case, an account was credited with more than 98 million US dollars without any effort to clarify its commercial background. The magnitude of the scandal should now be obvious to even the most intellectually challenged Malaysian or Australian politician and bank regulator, all of whom ought to be contemplating what might happen next.Sanctions ,fines, penalties and jail terms for all involved seem highly l

by Ganesh Sahathevan Australia's Commonwealth Department Of Human Services chief Kathryn Campbell  has early this month  taken a  3 month leave of absence. Campbell is in charge of one of the largest departments in the Australian civil service, her role requiring that she have not one but three physical offices to carry out her duties.   Her absence raises questions about whether her poor management, which has had security implications ,has finally led to her jumping,  if not  pushed. Her responsibilities include management of the massive Human Services IT system which is used to manage dole  , Medicare and other social welfare payments The system is interfaced with that of  at least Immigration ,the Tax Office and probably other government departments. Ms Campbell has frequently complained that system hardware and software needs updating, even if the issues that plagued the system were often matters of simple programming and management. Nevertheless, she was given more than a bill

by Ganesh Sahathevan In typical Malaysian fashion PM Najib has declared to the Malaysian Parliament that he and 1 MDB "chose" not to pay 1 MDB bondholders because of a dispute with IPIC ,who are co-guarantors of the bond. Repayment of a debt may be disputed in the event that there is conflict between the lender and borrower, but in this case, Najib has in fact admitted that the debt is not in dispute.By his own admission, 1 MDB simply chose not to pay.That there is a dispute with anyone else, even the guarantor, is of no relevance to the creditor bondholders. Consequently, the bondholders and their trustees are entitled to sue 1 MDB and the Malaysian Government for all and any damages (there have now been two instances) , in addition to recovery of any monies owed. The defaults (there have already been two instances this far) and the continued public insistence by Najib , 1 MDB and the Malaysian Government have already caused a loss in capital,when the bonds fell in value. T

by Ganesh Sahathevan  MP Tony Pua says: Finally, while it is no longer denied that Najib received at least RM69 million from SRC International, even if it was unwittingly received, why haven’t the funds been returned to SRC International? If the prime minister really did not realise then that the RM69 million deposited into his personal bank account came from SRC International, shouldn't he return the money immediately? If Najib could be so honest as to return some US$620 million of unutilised donation to his mysterious alleged Arab donor, why could he return the paltry RM69 million? Pua asks a question that ought to have been resolved by Attorney-General Appandi, a former justice of the Federal Court ,in his 1 MDB report which "cleared" Najib. The answer, blindingly obvious, is that when one receives goods ,say a bank deposit , which one knows have been negligently or otherwise wrongly  conveyed, one must return it.  As the Minister in charge of SRC, and in any case give