The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is taking legal action against two law firms to secure the production of essential document related to the settlement agreement between Goldman Sachs and AmBank regarding the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.
The anti-corruption agency has initiated two separate applications in court, one directed at lawyer Rosli Dahlan and his firm Rosli Dahlan Saravanan, and the other aimed at lawyer Chetan Jethwani and his firm Chetan Jethwani & Company, alongside other involved parties.
In the applications submitted on October 11, the prosecution states that they are pursuing access to documents to aid their ongoing investigations into allegations of bribery and money laundering linked to Rosli and Chetan in connection with Goldman Sach’s US$3.9 billion (RM18.5 billion) settlement and AmBank’s RM2.83 billion settlement with the Malaysian government over the 1MDB case.
Chetan was also the lawyer of Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin in a civil case while Rosli represented the former prime minister in case involving Jana Wibawa project.
The documents cited include the appointment letters as Goldman Sachs lawyer (Chetan) and 1MDB (Rosli), account statements and company account statements.
In court documents received by the media, MACC said it encountered obstacles in obtaining the necessary documents, primarily due to the uncooperative stance of the respondents.
Based on the affidavit of the application, MACC investigation officer Mohd Sabri Mohd Latif said it is conducting an investigation on the two lawyers under Section 17 (a) of MACC Act 2009 as well as Section 4(1) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).
Mohd Sabri said on Oct 6, MACC senior enforcement officer Muhamad Firdaus Ahmad Sabry and Mohd Farid Ismail have visited the two law firms to explain that the agency needs to carry out search and inspection to obtain the documents.
“For the purpose, the said officers have submitted two orders under Section 31 (1) of MACC Act 2009, which gives the power to search and seize.
Both lawyers said they are unable to provide the documents requested, as under Section 46 of MACC Act 2009 as well as Section 126 of Evidence Act 1950.
They (Chetan and Rosli), he said, insist that a court order under Section 46 of the MACC Act is a prerequisite before any documents can be accessed or removed from their premises.
Mohd Sabri said the document is also needed to identify their roles and actions and whether they are conspiring with Goldman Sachs and the parties concerned in implementing a scheme that reduced the amount of asset recovery on the amount to be paid to Putrajaya.
“Besides that, the document is needed to identify the transaction of receipt of the bribe money, the flow of money as well as the ‘layering’ that took place from the Goldman Sachs account to the account of the said law firms,” he said.
Meanwhile, Chetan, in his affidavit in reply, claimed that there were clear procedural defects in the application, which included that the applicant was the MACC and not the public prosecutor.
He said the power to search and seize according to Section 31 of the MACC Act must be carried out by the public prosecutor.
According to the lawyer, there was no agreement by Goldman Sachs to pay about US$9.7 billion as the agreed amount and terms of payment in the settlement were confidential.
“In the first negotiation, the Malaysian government was represented by (the then Attorney-General) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, Ganesan Nithi from Thomas’ legal firm and Rohayu, who was the special officer to the Attorney General at that time. However, at this negotiation, no agreement was reached.
“Through the second and third negotiations, the Malaysian government was represented by various enforcement and government agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Securities Commission, the National Financial Crime Prevention Centre and the Treasury Division of the Ministry of Finance,” he said.
He also stated that the settlement agreement was signed by Treasury Director-General Datuk Asri Hamidon and then Minister of Finance, Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz, who was now the Investment, Trade and Industry Minister.
The case involving Chetan came up for mention today (Oct 16) before High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin, who then set Nov 9 to hear the prosecution’s application to transfer the case to another High Court to be heard together with the case involving Rosli.
Through a review of the court system, the case involving Rosli will be heard before Judge K. Muniandy on Tuesday.
Yesterday, Chetan confirmed his law firm was the subject of an attempted search and seizure by the MACC and the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) in relation to their investigations last week.
