[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR (Bernama): The High Court here on Monday (March 29) heard that Umno and his politicians had received contaminated money attributable to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), proven on the basis of the money trace to Datuk Seri’s bank accounts Najib Tun Razak.
Assistant District Attorney Liew Horng Bin said this was based on Najib’s Ambank 9694 and 1880 accounts and AmIslamic 1906 and 1898 accounts.
“The politicians of Umno and Umno had received contaminated money attributable to 1MDB and are the main beneficiaries of the fraud perpetrated in 1MDB. But when tens of millions of ringgit were paid by checks or direct debits from Najib’s personal accounts to Umno and his associates , surely not everything was going well.
“Datuk Seri Najib simply could not have the infinite means to face the black hole of funding. One would surely wonder ‘where did Najib get his money from? “he said, adding that Najib had various roles: he was prime minister, finance minister, chairman of Umno and chairman of the 1MDB advisory board, who had the final say in any 1MDB business decision.
Liew said this at the hearing on the prosecution’s request for the confiscation of RM114,164,393.44 in cash seized from a premises owned by Obyu Holdings Sdn Bhd before Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin.
In 2019, the prosecution filed the forfeiture request against Obyu Holdings to seize the items, including 11,991 units of jewelry, 401 watches and 16 watch accessories, 234 pairs of glasses and 306 handbags, as well as cash in various denominations worth 114,164,393.44 ringgit.
Umno and Najib were the third parties in the application. Any third party claiming to have an interest in the seized items can come to court to show cause why the government should not seize them.
Liew also argued that since Umno and his associates had been shown to be 1MDB’s illegally diverted money deposit, in light of the incontrovertible bank records, it was too far-fetched to suggest that Umno lacked knowledge or was not intentionally ignorant of the illegal source of monies received.
“The conduct of Umno and his associates posits a classic case of deliberate blindness. It was obvious that Umno did nothing as reasonably expected to prevent the illegal use of that tainted 1MDB money. Instead, Umno had freely and tacitly consented to the dissipation. of the illegal money he received from 1MDB through Najib’s Ambank accounts 9694 and 1880 and AmIslamic accounts 1906 and 1898.
“No matter how you look at this, you can’t escape the fact that Umno was right in the thick of things. His involvement and collusion in the money laundering attributable to 1MDB was beyond question.
“For that reason, this court should not endorse Umno’s argument that it doesn’t give a penny if the seized cash is traceable to embezzled 1MDB funds, or for that matter, any crime, when the preponderance of the evidence It’s already so clear. to see, “he said, adding that Najib’s claim that the seized cash was a political donation belonging to Umno was contradicted by Umno’s evidence.
Liew said the former prime minister also did not reveal the identity of the taxpayer to back up his claim.
“The quick responses given by Najib in his testimonial statement, his police report and the affidavits submitted for this hearing regarding the seized cash only point to the compelling inference that the seized cash is from illegal activities,” he said. .
Liew also claimed that at the time of the raid, the seizure order was served not only to Najib, but also to Obyu as the owner of the property from which all items were seized at Pavilion Residences.
Regarding the fact of this case, during the investigation stage, Najib had said that the seized cash was a political donation that he had in trust as the then president of Umno. However, his claim was disputed by Umno’s top management. Umno officials interviewed during the investigation denied that the seized cash belonged to Umno.
“Pavilion Residences owner Obyu Holdings, on the other hand, revealed that all of the seized items belonged to Datuk Seri Najib and his family. Under the circumstances, there is really no way of knowing who the actual owner of the seized cash is,” he He said.
Judge Muhammad Jamil set May 20 to issue his decision. – Bernama
[ad_2]
