SRC trial: Najib didn’t lodge reports despite irregular signatures, massive transactions in personal accounts
AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan branch manager, R. Uma Devi is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex April 25, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
KUALA LUMPUR, April 30 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak did not flag activities linked to his three AmBank accounts even after millions of ringgit moved in and out of these, the High Court heard as part of his trial involving RM42 million from a former 1MDB unit today.
AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan branch manager R. Uma Devi also testified today that the former prime minister took no action and made no complaint from 2011 to 2015 despite irregularities in the signatures of signatories he appointed via authorisation letters to the bank.
Uma Dewi, testifying for the fourth day in a row, then agreed with Najib’s lawyer, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, that it was abnormal for such inconsistencies to go unreported.
Shafee: Do you find it quite surprising, in view of what was raised earlier, of the bank records having such issues?
Uma Devi: It is quite unusual I would say.
Shafee: Looking at the documents, in relation to the matters we testified over various accounts, did you not find any documents that raised alarm, pertaining to sources of funds (in Najib’s accounts?)
Uma Devi: Not to the records I have.
Uma Devi is the 21st prosecution witness in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s money-laundering and criminal breach of trust trial over RM42 million of funds from SRC International, a former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) unit.
Uma Devi said despite principles and practises of each bank differing among each other, transactions of RM50,000 from overseas sources would usually raise alarm bells at branch level and require Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) approval.
She said that at branch level, transactions of such amounts would trigger a threshold report, requiring the owner of the recipient account to explain the source and purpose of the incoming funds.
The bank manager then explained banking procedures concerning suspected fraud, where if such cases were detected by the bank’s Anti-Money Laundering unit, a report would be made to the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) system first, and not necessarily the account holder.
Shafee: In relation to, if the bank itself finds something irregular, do you agree with me that the bank owes the duty to the account holder to alert the customer that they suspect something is not entirely right?
Uma Devi: Meaning if the account has any fraud? Usually we don’t inform the customer because it will tip them off. Normally we raise the issue to STR within the bank, and the Compliance Unit will investigate and inform the branch if they need to inform the customer. At the first stage, we will raise it with STR, and then prompt compliance (unit).
Shafee: Surely you don’t mean banish account holder. If you do find something not right, you must surely alert the holder if you suspect the ones who operate the account (are responsible). Wouldn’t you have to contact the holder and alert them?
Uma Devi: If it is proven that fraud is done by the account nominees, then we have to alert (them).
Shafee: When someone detects a different signature (on authorisation letters), there are grounds to alert (the bank)?
Uma Devi: After investigations then we will take action, we have to investigate.
Shafee: If (investigations are) not satisfactory?
Uma Devi: Then we will inform the account holder.
Concerning investigations and raids carried out by BNM on the AmBank branch she works at in 2015, Uma Devi also agreed that a report must have been reported for action to be taken by the then special task force was headed at that time by attorney general Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, then BNM governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, former inspector-general of police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, and then MACC chief Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed.
The trial will continue on May 2.
Will Najib Be Sent To Jail?
I can only say we have walked down this road before. Back in the 1990s, we were talking about fixing up Anwar. Today, it is about fixing up Najib. But one thing never changes. And that is whichever side the Malays are on will end up the winner. Hence this is not about Najib. This is about who the Malays support. And currently the Malays are with Najib.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Tell the truth even if Sedition Act hangs over you, said Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. There is nothing to worry about if you tell the truth and get probed for sedition as it does not mean there will be prosecution, Mahathir said.
In 2001, when Mahathir was the Prime Minister, I was arrested for sedition — twice, in fact. I was also detained under the Internal Security Act because eight months earlier I had launched the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC) and had gone to the United States to meet the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to brief them on Anwar’s political persecution.
The FAC campaign also extended to the Australian Parliament, US Congress, UK Parliament and EU Parliament. Of course, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., were also in our campaign list.
In short, the whole world was “educated” about Anwar’s case and because of that they supported Anwar against Mahathir’s government (which is why they detained me).
In 2000, I brought Anwar’s case to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
I always tell people, in Malaysia, they allow you freedom of speech. It is freedom after speech that you do not have.
Anyway, the new IGP, Abdul Hamid Bador, who used to be in the Special Branch, can tell you more. Hamid knows my sentiments and he knows about my feelings towards Anwar.
The Special Branch grilled me about my work in the FAC and regarding my interactions with “foreign powers”. They accused me of working for the CIA and threatened to charge me for treason, which carries the death penalty. When that did not work, they offered to show me the proof that Anwar was, in fact, guilty of sodomy — so I am wrong for supporting him.
I asked the Special Branch what made them think I was heading the FAC and campaigning for Anwar because I think he was innocent of sodomy?
The US supported Anwar against Mahathir
This caught them off-guard. “Then why would you support and campaign for Anwar if you think he is guilty of sodomy?” they asked me.
The issue is not whether Anwar is innocent or guilty, I told them. I do not care about that (because I do not care whether you are straight, gay or bisexual). The issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Anwar’s guilt. And I attended Anwar’s trial almost every day and I saw with my own eyes that the prosecution failed to prove Anwar’s guilt. And the judge ruled that Anwar is guilty because he failed to prove his innocence. Ok
That is what I oppose, not that I think Anwar did not poke his pecker into the bontot of a jambu.
The Special Branch had no reply to that. In fact, they admitted that the prosecution had done a bad job in spite of all the evidence the police managed to gather.
The Special Branch admitted that the prosecution messed up and failed to prove Anwar’s guilt but they sent him to jail anyway
“Was it intentional?” I asked them. “Did the prosecution purposely mess up to give Anwar strong grounds to appeal the verdict later and get off?” With a dejected look on their faces, they murmured that this is one of the suspicions.
So, even the Special Branch was wondering how the prosecution could mess up such an easy case. And, when Anwar appealed his conviction, the court ruled that even though they were convinced of Anwar’s guilt, the prosecution had failed to prove Anwar’s guilt, and they released Anwar on 2nd September 2004.
So there you are. The court said they felt Anwar is guilty. But the prosecution failed to prove it. Hence the court had to reluctantly release Anwar.
I debated this matter with the Special Branch in 2001 (three years before the court released Anwar in 2004). And I was right. In 2001, I asked the Special Branch why choose the crime of sodomy to use against Anwar? Surely there are many other “easier” crimes they can use.
The Malays are with Najib and not with Pakatan Harapan
The Special Branch replied that this was the most effective of all. Malays will get disgusted with sodomy. Any other crime such as abuse of power, conflict of interest, corruption, etc., will not upset the Malays as much as sodomy would.
Okay, so, in short, sodomy instead of another crime would have the maximum impact and would result in the Malays turning their backs on Anwar. Even corruption is not enough to get the Malays to feel disgusted with Anwar. So, basically, the (disgusting) sodomy charge was meant to sway the Malay support away from Anwar.
And the same thing is happening to Najib Tun Razak. Mahathir wanted him ousted so they tried to pin all sorts of crimes on him. Then, because of the non-stop allegations and the trial by media, Pakatan Harapan was forced to arrest and charge Najib. And currently his trial is ongoing.
Puteri Umno is spearheading the fight to win the hearts and minds of the young Malays
But then Najib was alleged to have stolen RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money. However, his trial is for stealing RM42 million of SRC International’s money. Yes, RM42 million, not RM42 billion. And SRC, not 1MDB.
And then, as the trial progresses, it appears that Najib’s claim that the money came from the Arabs and that he later returned the money to them is true after all. Furthermore, Bank Negara Malaysia was aware of the whole thing and approved the transactions. So it was not done “under-the-table” after all, as you would if it was money-laundering.
And, to add icing to the cake, some of the signatures on the transactions may not be Najib’s, so we are talking about forged signatures here. And the money was distributed and spent on political activities, which is quite normal for Malaysian politics (even Pakatan Harapan does it) and was being done since back in the 1980s when Mahathir and Anwar were in charge of Umno.
I can only say we have walked down this road before. Back in the 1990s, we were talking about fixing up Anwar. Today, it is about fixing up Najib. But one thing never changes. And that is whichever side the Malays are on will end up the winner. Hence this is not about Najib. This is about who the Malays support. And currently the Malays are with Najib.
No comments:
Post a Comment