AG says both Malaysia and India are to render to one another the widest measure of mutual assistance and such assistance includes the serving of summons

Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali says both Malaysia and India are to render to one another the widest measure of mutual assistance and such assistance includes the serving of summons. — Picture by Saw Siow FengMore

THE STAR

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 9 ― Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has confirmed that both Malaysia and India would help serve summonses issued by the other government under a signed treaty over criminal matters.

Apandi referred to the treaty which Malaysia and India signed in 2012, which he said does not cover the execution of arrest warrants issued by the other country.

“In accordance with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 and the Treaty between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of India on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLA Treaty) , both States is to render to one another the widest measure of mutual assistance and such assistance includes the serving of summons,” he said in an email response to Malay Mail Online over the weekend.

“Arrest warrant does not fall under the scope of MLA treaty nor the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002. Generally arrest warrant falls under extradition matters governed by the Extradition Act 1992 which is under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs,” he added.

Malay Mail Online had contacted the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to verify news reports in India of summonses issued there and forwarded to the High Commission of India in Kuala Lumpur, with the summonses reportedly then passed on to Malaysia's AG and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be served to Malaysian corporate figures Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan and Augustus Ralph Marshall and two firms in relation to a corruption case tied to the Aircel-Maxis deal.

But Apandi noted that the nature of such information is confidential.

“Any request for mutual assistance in a criminal matter made by a foreign Government to the Government of Malaysia, including from the Government of the Republic of India, is confidential.

“Hence, such information may not be disclosed to public. Be that as it may, this Chambers has always given its highest consideration to request of such nature in ensuring justice is upheld,” he said, without specifying any case or individual or firm.

Last week, a spokesman from the High Commission of India in Kuala Lumpur similarly toldMalay Mail Online that requests under the 2012 treaty between India and Malaysia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters are confidential, adding that it would be inappropriate to provide comments on the matter at this point.

Although questions to the High Commission were among other things on summonses issued by India for two court cases involving alleged corruption and money-laundering claims, it did not specify which case or individual or firm it was commenting on.

Last week, India's news agencies also reported that India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had applied to the courts for arrest warrants to be issued on Ananda, Marshall and the two companies Maxis Communications Bhd and Astro All Asia Networks, as summonses previously issued for the four had failed to be served. The court in India will hear CBI’s application for arrest warrants on August 27.

The two separate cases of alleged corruption and money laundering — related to Maxis Communications Bhd’s previous takeover of India’s telecommunications firm Aircel — are dealt with primarily by India’s CBI and Enforcement Directorate, a law enforcement agency that primarily deals with money laundering. Malay Mail Online has yet to receive a response from both bodies.

Last Thursday, telecommunications firm Maxis Berhad said in a company announcement filed with Bursa Malaysia that it is a “separate and distinct legal entity” from Maxis Communications Berhad, reiterating its September 2014 filing that the court proceedings do not implicate Maxis Berhad and will have no impact to its operations.

Broadcasting and content providing group Astro Malaysia Holdings Berhad (AMH) similarly said last Thursday that the reported proceedings does not implicate or impact the company, which it said is a separate and distinct legal entity from Astro All Asia Networks plc.

In their company announcements, both Maxis Berhad and AMH did not specify which court case they were referring to.