The Riza Aziz deal that has allegedly led to the Attorney General(Public Prosecutor) discontinuing the criminal case against Riza Aziz(son of Rosmah, step-son of Najib) this month, who was then given a DNAA(Discharge Not Amounting To Acquittal).
A DNAA is usually given because the prosecution on re-evaluation of evidence, decided that now available evidence is simply insufficient to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt - hence the 'smart' thing to do is to stop the case now, give him a DNAA and thereafter in some future date, if sufficient evidence is available, to simply charge him again, and continue with the trial. That is FAIR for it would be foolish to simply proceed with a trial knowing that the chances of getting a conviction is slim. Was it the reason for the DNAA in Riza Aziz'z case?
Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak pleaded not guilty at the Sessions Court here today to five charges of involvement in money laundering activities involving US$248 million (RM1.25 bilion) which were misappropriated from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fund.- Bernama, Borneo Post, 5/7/2019
"An agreement has been arrived at between the prosecution and the accused under the terms of which the Federal Government will receive a substantial sum running into several million ringgit."The sum have direct reference to the subject matter of the charges framed in this case," Sri Ram said.He added that as a consequence of the agreement, the charges framed against Riza would not be proceeded with pending the completion of the agreement."The prosecution with the consent of the accused now respect moves the court for an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal," Sri Ram said.After the statement was read, Azman then made the order for discharge not amounting to an acquittal. - Star, 14/5/2020
Remember, if the trial goes on, and he is found guilty, for each offence, besides a lengthy prison term, he shall also be liable to a fine of not less than five times the
sum or value of the proceeds of an unlawful activity or
instrumentalities of an offence at the time the offence was committed or
five million ringgit, whichever is the higher....' If found guilty, he will be fined about RM7.5 billion - Malaysia will get this money. {It has been reported before that 1MDB has about RM 42 billion (US$11.73 billion) in debt - and we, Malaysians, will be liable for this?}
HOWEVER, what is disturbing is that there is now a mention of COMPOUNDING these offences.(See Statement by the AG dated 17/5/2020 - could be seen in earlier post - If compounded, then the Prosecution cannot again in the future charge him again. HENCE, there must be no offer to Compound these offences.
iii. Pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001. - Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun, Attorney General / Public Prosecutor's statement dated 17 May 2020
Once compounded, cannot charge anymore .... later..DOUBLE JEOPARDY and Section 92(4) of AMLA is very clear on this...
92 Power of competent authority to compound offences(ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001)(4) Where an offence has been compounded under subsection (1), no prosecution shall be instituted in respect of the offence against the person to whom the offer to compound was made.
Now, look again to the AG's Statement,...and note this possibility of charging again if Riza does not do what agreed to... NOT possible if the offences are compounded now
b. On 11th March 2020, the Solicitors sent another letter of representation fortifying the earlier proposal and undertook that, should Riza Aziz fail to comply with the terms and conditions, the original five (5) money laundering charges would remain.
The WHY did the AG and/or Sri Ram discontinue the criminal trial proceedings against Riza Aziz still remains a mystery ... Is it ONE or many more discontinuation of proceedings against BN politicians and their family members that we will be seeing soon? After all, Prime Minister's Muhyiddin's support is very precarious > Can he now refuse 'demands' or 'requests' from any of MPs at this point and time - if 2 or more stop supporting Muhyiddin, he will no longer by Prime Minister - is this a factor in the Riza case?
What will RIZA give in return to the dropping of the charges ...and keeping him out of JAIL?
WITNESS for Prosecution > But then, is he not an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory', so will his evidence in court really have much 'weight' or credibility? I drop all charges and you TESTIFY - What weight will the court even place on any evidence from such a witness, I wonder - I do not think a lot?
As I pointed out earlier, most of the property and/or money that he will return have already been FORFEITED by the US, and/or Malaysia? And when the government 'forfeits', this implies that the government is satisfied that they will win in court and will get the property.
Last May, the United States began returning some of the recovered funds. The first instalment was nearly $200 million.The DOJ had initially been scheduled to return the next payment of recovered funds to Malaysia on Feb. 19, but there were technical reasons the transfer did not happen, the two sources said. - CNBC
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday (April 14) said it has repatriated another US$300 million (S$424 million) to Malaysia in recovered money misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB, the country's sovereign wealth fund. - Strait Times
DID Riza give a detailed statement on oath yet -- or the Prosecution simply trust him to say the full TRUTH in court, when he takes the stand...? Serious questions...serious questions that Malaysians deserve answers...the TRUTH..
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO DISCONTINUE PROCEEDINGS WITH A DNAA - Was it the NEW Attorney General or was it come other? This power to discontinue proceedings is a power not exclusive to the AG(or Public Prosecutor), more so since this happened in the Sessions Court...look at the Criminal Procedure Code section 254(2) - does it mean in Riza case, it was 'Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, who led the prosecution,...', after all the news report talks about an agreement between 'prosecution'(and, when it did not say 'Public Prosecutor' - can we 100% say it was the Attorney General?)
254 Public Prosecutor may decline to prosecute further at any stage
(1) At any stage of any trial, before the delivery of judgment, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the Court that he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge and thereupon all proceedings on the charge against the accused shall be stayed and the accused shall be discharged of and from the same.
(2) At any stage of any trial before a Sessions Court or a Magistrates Court before the delivery of judgment, the officer conducting the prosecution may, if he thinks fit, inform the Court that he does not propose further to prosecute the accused upon the charge, and thereupon all proceedings on the charge against the accused may be stayed by leave of the Court and, if so stayed, the accused shall be discharged of and from the same.
(3) Such discharge shall not amount to an acquittal unless the Court so directs.
Media reports, sadly do not tell us much - was the discontinuance of proceeding done in accordance with Article 145(3) FEDERAL Constitution, which is the power of the Attorney General, or was it done in accordance to section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code? That too...sadly, I do not know? In this case, naturally only an exercise of the powers of the AG is possible - as section 254 can only be relied upon after TRIAL has started, and a trial starts when the 1st witness takes the stand to give evidence...(if I am not wrong, which I believe I am not) - so then it must be AG that needs to explain his decision..WILL THE SESSION COURT JUDGE WRITE HIS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT LEADING TO THAT DECISION TO DNAA RIZA AZIZ - It would really help clarify the many questions we have?
REVISION - well, there were reports that some lawyer made an application to the High Court to revise the Session Court's decision > I do not believe a FORMAL APPLICATION was ever made, which if it was, then there will be a court date...and a 'hearing'..I'll explain later in a subsequent post more about REVISION? All that the lawyer may have done is write a letter asking the court or some particular High Court Judge to exercise his powers of revision...well, such letters seldom work - unless, it raised some good points > Well, we have not seen the letter(or the 'application') or ...HENCE, THE DOOR MAY NOT BE CLOSED FOR EVEN A REVISION???
APPEAL - will not work, because it has to be done by one of the parties, i.e. the Prosecution or Riza Aziz...and I doubt either will appeal?
JUDICIAL REVIEW - This is always a possibility - it is an application to court to review the decision of the Attorney General > To date, no one seems to have yet filed this application? Who will do it? Some peoples' representative, etc...we shall see.[Previous court decisions take the position that they cannot review the AG's decision > but that matters little, as court decisions and positions do change --- so, it is certainly a good option open to us > to go for a JUDICIAL REVIEW...more so, for this time the discontinuation of this criminal proceedings seems to be for what I think is a 'most unreasonable reason' - to recover monies? When did the recovery of the 'fruits of the crime' become more important than punishing the criminal?'
SPEAK UP MALAYSIANS
It is important that Malaysians SPEAK UP for this is our country.
We are a DEMOCRACY and as such we the PEOPLE decide what happens in our country. The Prime Minister, let alone the Attorney General, is not FREE to do as they please - they are responsible to act for the people.
What happened to my Temerloh MP, Annuar Tahir of Parti Amanah - why is he not speaking up for the people and for Malaysia?
Our peoples' representative, sadly, many have been silent - remember they are elected by the PEOPLE to represent them, and many have the clear mandate of tens of thousands of Malaysians who voted from them. So, WHY is our MPs and ADUNs keeping quite on this issue - their silence can be wrongly construed as their 'consent' to what happened - Will the 100 plus MPs of the Opposition, and the others from Perikatan Nasional speak up NOW - do they agree with what is happening with regard the Riza case or not.
It is not sufficient for Anwar Ibrahim or Mahathir only to speak up - they are not the peoples' representatives, save for the people of their own constituency, i.e. Port Dickson and Langkawi. They may be the party leaders, but we chose our own MPs and ADUNs - we did not choose them to speak for us.
The RIZA case is VERY IMPORTANT as it concerns funds taken from the Malaysian people, 1MDB and other entities, and this issue is one of the reason many people chose to vote out Najib and the Barisan Nasional government. ...and to give the Opposition(the Coalition of Hope- Pakatan Harapan and its allies including Parti Warisan a chance)...
The Pakatan Harapan and their allies may have lost the control of the government, thanks to 'party hopping' and some Parties(MPs) withdrawing support from Pakatan Harapan - but remember, the people chose you to represent them, and MPs and ADUNs must publicly speak out on behalf of the people now...if not, they should simply RESIGN and let the people choose better peoples' representative who will speak out for justice and the best interest of the people and Malaysia.
Is the Pakatan Harapan and our 'Opposition MPs' just concerned about winning back the POWER to govern - Kick such MPs out, we want peoples' representative that are personally concerned about JUSTICE and human rights and all of us in Malaysia... Remember, they are FREE to talk and express themselves every day - NO need to just wait to speak in Parliament...
WHAT WAS THE REASON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Public Prosecutor) decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against RIZA AZIZ? TELL US PLEASE...
It seems that the reason was to merely RECOVER the monies --- but that is a VERY WRONG reason to discontinue criminal proceedings, in my opinion.
In a criminal case, the primary object is to PUNISH those who broke the existing Malaysian law...not to recover 'monies stolen' or even 'compensating the victims'.
If monies/goods stolen are returned to the victim, the most that it will do is to act as a MITIGATING factor - that may result in a reduced sentence. If it was returned voluntarily better, if not - i.e. found by the police/authorities, then it may be less a mitigating factor. So, if the maximum sentence was 10 years, and the thief voluntarily returns monies/goods stolen, maybe the courts may reduce the sentence to maybe 5 years...
In this case of RIZA, the properties obtained with 'dirty money' have already been seized by the United States Department of Justice, who naturally will return them to Malaysians..Some other property have already been seized by the Malaysian government, and forfeiture proceedings on the way...which reasonably the Malaysian government will win, the property will be returned to Malaysia.[So, what exactly is THE deal]
RIZA AZIZ - many surrendered the money/wealth when they realized this was 'dirty money' taken from the Malaysian people - If Riza came clean then, and surrendered all that he received...it is a different matter.
If RIZA AZIZ was repentant (INSAF), pleaded guilty and surrendered not just the monies mentioned in his charges(which may be there, but no charges yet simply because not enough evidence, etc) - then the Court could have even sentenced him to 1 day jail, and to pay the fine. If no money to pay fine, he may be declared bankrupt...but so what, after all so many Malaysians have been declared bankrupt...BUT Now, what happened to RIZA AZIZ, more so, when it happens within about 2 months since the previous government has been ousted...and we are still under MCO because of COVID-19....if not, there may be a strong protest in the streets...
WHOSE CASE WILL BE NEXT DISCONTINUED?
See earlier posts:-
Riza Aziz - Pay back 43%(US$108 million) of what he allegedly took? Compounded for what and how much- US$620 million? US270 million? Justice?
Riza Aziz charged on five counts of money laundering involving USD248 million
Riza arrives at court, where he pleaded not guilty to give charges of money laundering. Bernama Photo
KUALA LUMPUR: Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, the stepson of former prime
minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak pleaded not guilty at the Sessions
Court here today to five charges of involvement in money laundering
activities involving US$248 million (RM1.25 bilion) which were
misappropriated from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fund.
Riza, 42, the owner of Red Granite Pictures entered the plea in the
presence of Judge Rozina Ayob after the charges were read out to him.
On the first charge, the producer of the film ‘Wolf of Wall Street’
was charged with involvement in money laundering activities by accepting
funds from illegal activities involving US$1,173,104 through a money
transfer transaction from account number 11116073 belonging to Good Star
Limited at RBS Coutts, Zurich, Switzerland to a City National Bank
account, Los Angeles, USA number 123248291 belonging to Red Granite
Productions Inc.
The funds were alleged to have been misappropriated from the 1MDB fund.
Riza was alleged to have committed the offence between April 12, 2011
and May 12 at City National Bank, Los Angeles Main, 525 South Flower
Street, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Riza was also charged with committing the same offence involving
US$9,000,000 through a money transfer transaction from the same account
on Sept 10, 2012 and Oct 2012 at the same location.
On the third and fourth charges, the accused was charged with
committing the same offence involving US$133,000,000 and US$60,000,000
through a money transfer transaction from account number 81134378
belonging to Aabar Investment PJS Limited at BSI SA, Lugano, Switzerland
to a BSI Bank Limited Singapore account number 6C02250A belonging to
Red Granite Capital Ltd.
He was charged with committing the offence at BSI Ltd, 7 Temasek
Boulevard, #32-01 Suntec Tower One, Singapore on June 18, 2012 and Oct
23, 2012.
On the fifth count, the accused was charged with the same offence amounting to US$45,000,000 at the same place on Nov 14, 2012.
The charges were made under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money
Laundering, Prevention of Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful
Activities Act 2001 which provides for a fine of up to RM5 million or a
jail term of up to five years or both, upon conviction.
Prosecution was conducted by former Federal Court Judge Datuk Seri
Gopal Sri Ram and Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib while Riza
was represented by a legal team led by Datuk K. Kumaraendran. – Bernama, Borneo Post, 5/7/2019
Riza Aziz given discharge not amounting to acquittal
Nation
Thursday, 14 May 2020 11:49 AM MYT
By NURBAITI HAMDAN
Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz (left), the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak with his lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
KUALA LUMPUR: Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, the stepson of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, has been given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal by the Sessions Court here over five counts of money laundering charges involving US$248mil (RM1.25bil) linked to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
Sessions Court judge Azman Ahmad made the ruling after both parties reached an agreement through a representation sent to the Attorney General's Chambers.
Thursday (May 14) was initially fixed for case management.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, who led the prosecution, read a statement to the court, saying Riza has made several representations since he was first charged.
"An agreement has been arrived at between the prosecution and the accused under the terms of which the Federal Government will receive a substantial sum running into several million ringgit.
"The sum have direct reference to the subject matter of the charges framed in this case," Sri Ram said.
He added that as a consequence of the agreement, the charges framed against Riza would not be proceeded with pending the completion of the agreement.
"The prosecution with the consent of the accused now respect moves the court for an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal," Sri Ram said.
After the statement was read, Azman then made the order for discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
The court also ordered for Riza's RM1mil bail in two sureties to be returned.
On July 5, last year, Riza, owner of Red Granite Pictures, pleaded not guilty to five charges.
On the first charge, the producer of Wolf of Wall Street was accused of being involved in money laundering proceeds from unlawful activities amounting to US$1,173,104 (RM4.9mil) via a transaction made from an account with the number 11116073, which belonged to Good Star Limited at RBS Coutts, Switzerland to account number 123248291 of City National Bank, Los Angeles belonging to Red Granite Productions Inc.
The money was allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB funds between April 12 and May 12 at City National Bank, Los Angeles Main, 525 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California.
On the second charge, Riza, who is the son of Najib's wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor from her previous marriage, was accused of committing the same offence involving US$9mil (RM37.6mil) via transfers from the same account on Sept 10,2012, and Oct 10,2012, at the same premises.
On the third and fourth charges, he was accused of the same offence involving US$133mil (RM555.7mil) and US$60mil (RM250.6mil) in money transfers from account number 81134378 belonging to Aabar Investment PJS Limited, at BSI SA, Lugano, Switzerland to account number 6C02250A at BSI Bank Limited, Singapore belonging to Red Granite Capital Ltd.
The offence was allegedly committed at BSI Ltd, 7 Temasek Boulevard, #32-01 Suntec Tower One, Singapore on June 18,2012, and Oct 23,2012.
On the fifth charge, Riza was accused of committing the same offence amounting to US$45million (RM188mil) at the same venue on Nov 14,2012.
The charges were framed according to Section 4(1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which carries a fine not exceeding RM5mil or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both upon conviction. - Star, 14/5/2020
Sessions Court judge Azman Ahmad made the ruling after both parties reached an agreement through a representation sent to the Attorney General's Chambers.
Thursday (May 14) was initially fixed for case management.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, who led the prosecution, read a statement to the court, saying Riza has made several representations since he was first charged.
"An agreement has been arrived at between the prosecution and the accused under the terms of which the Federal Government will receive a substantial sum running into several million ringgit.
"The sum have direct reference to the subject matter of the charges framed in this case," Sri Ram said.
He added that as a consequence of the agreement, the charges framed against Riza would not be proceeded with pending the completion of the agreement.
"The prosecution with the consent of the accused now respect moves the court for an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal," Sri Ram said.
After the statement was read, Azman then made the order for discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
The court also ordered for Riza's RM1mil bail in two sureties to be returned.
On July 5, last year, Riza, owner of Red Granite Pictures, pleaded not guilty to five charges.
On the first charge, the producer of Wolf of Wall Street was accused of being involved in money laundering proceeds from unlawful activities amounting to US$1,173,104 (RM4.9mil) via a transaction made from an account with the number 11116073, which belonged to Good Star Limited at RBS Coutts, Switzerland to account number 123248291 of City National Bank, Los Angeles belonging to Red Granite Productions Inc.
The money was allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB funds between April 12 and May 12 at City National Bank, Los Angeles Main, 525 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California.
On the second charge, Riza, who is the son of Najib's wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor from her previous marriage, was accused of committing the same offence involving US$9mil (RM37.6mil) via transfers from the same account on Sept 10,2012, and Oct 10,2012, at the same premises.
On the third and fourth charges, he was accused of the same offence involving US$133mil (RM555.7mil) and US$60mil (RM250.6mil) in money transfers from account number 81134378 belonging to Aabar Investment PJS Limited, at BSI SA, Lugano, Switzerland to account number 6C02250A at BSI Bank Limited, Singapore belonging to Red Granite Capital Ltd.
The offence was allegedly committed at BSI Ltd, 7 Temasek Boulevard, #32-01 Suntec Tower One, Singapore on June 18,2012, and Oct 23,2012.
On the fifth charge, Riza was accused of committing the same offence amounting to US$45million (RM188mil) at the same venue on Nov 14,2012.
The charges were framed according to Section 4(1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which carries a fine not exceeding RM5mil or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both upon conviction. - Star, 14/5/2020
No comments:
Post a Comment