KL CHRONICLE: Attorney General Chambers Whacks Bank Negara for Incompetence

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Attorney General Chambers Whacks Bank Negara for Incompetence


The alleged offence investigated into by Bank Negara Malaysia is paragraph (4)(b) of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Exchange Control Act 1953 namely, knowingly or recklessly making a statement which is false in a material particular. In short the statement made must be false and material to the subject matter i.e. the information requested by Bank Negara Malaysia at the time when the application/s for remittances were sought for and in response to further information requested by Bank Negara Malaysia.

1MDB obtained three permissions from Bank Negara Malaysia to make remittances, namely on,

(1) 29 September 2009,

(2) 6 September 2010, and

(3) 20 May 2011.

It is noted that Bank Negara Malaysia did not take more than three days to grant the said permissions on all three occasions.

It is further noted that the relevant ECM forms namely 09A and 06B do not require the applicant to supply the name/s of beneficiary owner or the bank/s accounts numbers of the recipient/s or the manner as to how the funds to be channeled.

When 1MDB requested Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to remit to a different account, Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad sought clarification from Bank Negara Malaysia and Bank Negara Malaysia responded by advising Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad that it being a business decision and as long as there was no deviation from the purpose intended and no further query was made by Bank Negara Malaysia at that particular time.

Bank Negara Malaysia being the controller did not stop the remittance or direct Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to advise 1MDB to revert to Bank Negara Malaysia for a review of the permission. Clearly there was no information or further information requested by Bank Negara Malaysia at that material time. 1MBD rightfully furnished the information required for the purpose of the remittance.

The relevant forms for remittance in this case did not require the applicant to state the bank account number and the beneficiary of the same as in ordinary remittances which would enable Bank Negara Malaysia to go one step further to verify where the funds will end up to. Since there is no requirement, the omission on 1MDB officials’ part to disclose is not an offence under the Act.

As far as 1MDB is concerned it needs to fill up the relevant form and responds to the queries by Bank Negara Malaysia. If Bank Negara Malaysia does not request for certain or specific information how could 1MDB be faulted as it has filled up the form as required and responded to the queries made?

The officials of 1MDB at all material times i.e. during the process of obtaining the permissions had complied with the directions given, hence the permissions/approvals granted. Until and unless it can be shown that the officials had deliberately or knew or even recklessly provided information that were false in material particulars, they had committed no offence under this Act.

The Bank Negara Malaysia however vide a letter dated 1 October 2015 requested for a review of the decision citing omission on the part of 1MDB i.e. non-disclosure of certain information. As far as omission is concerned, there is no obligation to inform unless requested. In this respect and the fact that there is no new evidence made available, we do not see the necessity to review.

13 OCTOBER 2015

1 comment:

I think therefore I am... said...

As Jebat Must Die says - an anology - if a person was brought in the house by good faith and he not state his real intention, but a few years later it was discovered by the owner that the said person had stolen a few items from the house, the thief cannot be charged by the law!

Paraphrasing the AG’s words – “If the house owner does not request for certain or specific information from the eventual thief, how could the thief be faulted?

To make it even more perplexing, the thief now is making a police report because someone had obtained the proof of him stealing!

The whole thing is so goddamned insult to intelligence to even primary school pupils. Are we gonna teach them it's ok to steal and lie, and worse of all, if found out years later, it's considered ok, no wrongdoing had been done.And you wanna be proud of this way of life?

Share This


Facebook Popup

Powered by Blog - Widget