In his first encounter with the media since assuming the post on July 28, Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Apandi Ali chose not to take any question. He read out a prepared statement detailing the 1MDB issue and the detention of Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang.
cc
PUTRAJAYA: The government investment company 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) did not commit any offence under the Exchange Control Act 1953, said Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali.
"As far as 1MDB is concerned it needs to fill up the relevant form and respond to the queries by Bank Negara Malaysia. If Bank Negara 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," said Apandi.
Speaking at a press conference at the Attorney-General's Chambers here, Apandi added that 1MDB "rightfully furnished the information required" for the purpose of the remittances.
He said that 1MDB obtained three permissions from Bank Negara to make remittances, on Sep 29, 2009, Sep 6, 2010 and May 20 2011.
"It is noted that Bank Negara did not take more than three days to grant the permissions on all three occasions," said Apandi.
He added that the relevant exchange control forms, 09A and 06B do not require the applicant to supply the names of beneficiary owners or the bank account numbers of recipients or the manner as to how the funds are to be channeled.
Apandi said that when 1MDB requested Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to remit to a different account, the bank sought clearance from Bank Negara.
"Bank Negara being the controller did not stop the remittance or direct Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to advise 1MDB to revert to Bank Negara For a review of the permission. Clearly there was no information or further information requested by Bank Negara Malaysia at that material time," said Apandi.
He added that 1MDB rightfully furnished the information required for the purpose of the remittance.
Apandi said the alleged offence investigated by Bank Negara is Paragraph (4)(b) of 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 must be false and material to the subject matter i.e. the information requested by Bank Negara at the time when the application for remittances were sought for and in response to further information requested by Bank Negara," said Apandi.
"As far as 1MDB is concerned it needs to fill up the relevant form and respond to the queries by Bank Negara Malaysia. If Bank Negara 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," said Apandi.
Speaking at a press conference at the Attorney-General's Chambers here, Apandi added that 1MDB "rightfully furnished the information required" for the purpose of the remittances.
He said that 1MDB obtained three permissions from Bank Negara to make remittances, on Sep 29, 2009, Sep 6, 2010 and May 20 2011.
He added that the relevant exchange control forms, 09A and 06B do not require the applicant to supply the names of beneficiary owners or the bank account numbers of recipients or the manner as to how the funds are to be channeled.
Apandi said that when 1MDB requested Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to remit to a different account, the bank sought clearance from Bank Negara.
"Bank Negara being the controller did not stop the remittance or direct Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to advise 1MDB to revert to Bank Negara For a review of the permission. Clearly there was no information or further information requested by Bank Negara Malaysia at that material time," said Apandi.
He added that 1MDB rightfully furnished the information required for the purpose of the remittance.
Apandi said the alleged offence investigated by Bank Negara is Paragraph (4)(b) of 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 must be false and material to the subject matter i.e. the information requested by Bank Negara at the time when the application for remittances were sought for and in response to further information requested by Bank Negara," said Apandi.
Apandi Ali says both charged under Penal Code for attempting to sabotage country’s banking and financial systems.
(Free Malaysia Today) – Attorney-General Apandi Ali clarified today that 1MDB critic Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang were not charged under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma).
Apandi was seeking to clear up confusion arising from remarks by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad at a press conference yesterday.
Khairuddin and Chang were charged yesterday under the Penal Code. They were accused of attempting to sabotage the country’s banking and financial systems.
“This action has been questioned by certain parties, including in the article published in The Star on 12 October 2015 titled ‘Dr M, Ku Li team up to slam Sosma detention of 1MDB critics,’ as being an abuse of the government’s powers,” Apandi said at a press conference.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers clarifies that both Khairuddin and Chang are charged under Section 124L of the Penal Code and not Sosma.”
He described Sosma as a procedural law providing special measures to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of security offences.
He said the definition of “security measures” was not limited to measures against terrorism.
“When Sosma was enacted, the listed security offences were offences under Chapter 6 of the Penal Code – offences against the state – and Chapter 6A of the Penal Code – offences relating to terrorism.”
According to him, the list has since been extended to include Chapter 6B of the Penal Code (Organised Crime) and provisions in the 2015 Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act.
“Section 124L is an offence under Chapter 6 of the Penal Code and it was one of seven new offences introduced in 2012 through the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012.
“It is therefore a security offence to which Sosma applies.”
