Riza Aziz - well, he actually will only have to hand over a POSTER and some money in some account. All the other properties - well, they are allegedly currently in the possession of the US government who already seized them in connection with the 1MDB kleptocracy scandal, and the US will reasonably be returning all this to Malaysia(the Malaysian people), who were the victims.
This consists of a one-frame, three-sheet colour lithograph poster created by the German artist Heinz Schulz Neudamm for the 1927 silent film “Metropolis”.On top of that, the MACC had also instructed Riza to surrender US$14.09 million held in an escrow account at Huntington National Bank in the US, the attorney general said.
The 3 properties...
However, the three properties in question have already been seized by the US authorities previously, and it is understood that proceeds of the asset sale will be returned to Malaysia by the US Department of Justice.This raises the question as to why Malaysian prosecution had to arrive at a settlement with Riza this week.As recently as August 2019, it was reported that US prosecutors were seeking to sell the homes, as it requested a California court to lift a stay on forfeiture proceedings so that the properties can be sold.
So, Riza, as part of the agreement surrenders his rights '...Surrender his rights in
three (3) properties seized by the United States Department of Justice
and for Riza Aziz to facilitate the return of the same or its value, to
the Government of Malaysia....'. What rights does he even have, I wonder - Is Riza challenging the US seizure claiming that the property was not obtained with 'dirty money'. Has the US said that they are keeping it and not returning to Malaysia? No one will have any rights to monies/property that are stolen - likewise, what rights do Riza have?
So, if we minus that - what Riza is actually giving back to Malaysia is so little ..
Remember, if the trial goes on, and he is found guilty, 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....' > So, if the charges were concerning property valued say RM10million, the fine will be not less than RM50 million...See earlier post:-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?
Now, the deal talks about 'Pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.' - the Attorney General(Public Prosecutor) has yet to disclosed what offence will he be offered a compound? If all the same 5 offences, then the amount the amount of compound, he would have to pay is at least 50% of of US$1240 million (...five times the
sum or value of the proceeds of an unlawful activity) - which is US$620 million?
The Attorney General, i.e. the Public Prosecutor has a LOT OF POWER - and so, we need to monitor to ensure that these Public Prosecutor's powers to prosecute, discontinue prosecution, offer compound, etc is not abused or utilized wrongly?
The former Public Prosecutor(Apandi) chose not to prosecute Najib and/or others in connection with the 1MDB, SRC and other related funds...
The immediate past Public Prosecutor(Tommy Thomas) decided otherwise ...and even chose to prosecute Riza Aziz(son of Rosmah Mansor, step son of Najib Razak?)
The new Public Prosecutor(Idrus Harun) now decided to discontinue proceedings, and allow Riza Aziz to be 'discharged not amounting to acquittal(DNAA)', A DNAA is good, for it allows Riza Aziz to be charged again anytime in the future for the very same offence. Normally, the prosecution applies for a DNAA when, on evaluation they discovered that maybe they did not have sufficient evidence at the moment to successfully convict - so this is a 'temporary' abandonment of prosecution until maybe sufficient evidence is obtained...BUT, what is worrying is that agreement 'iii. Pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.', for once a compound is offered and paid, that is it > you cannot again charge Riza Aziz in the future anymore ...
Hence, we must be concerned about this 'Compound'....To date, the AG/Public Prosecutor is rather quiet about this...despite the fact that he has even come out with a public media statement dated 17/5/2020 (see below). What offences were offered to be compounded is very important - if the same 5 offences, then the compound offer amount is importnat...Remember, once compounded, cannot be later prosecuted for the same offence again... see earlier post -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?
Hence, we must be concerned about this 'Compound'....To date, the AG/Public Prosecutor is rather quiet about this...despite the fact that he has even come out with a public media statement dated 17/5/2020 (see below). What offences were offered to be compounded is very important - if the same 5 offences, then the compound offer amount is importnat...Remember, once compounded, cannot be later prosecuted for the same offence again... see earlier post -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?
iii. Pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.
With reference to the Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun(Attorney General / Public Prosecutor) statement, it must be pointed out that the the Public Prosecutor acts independently. It is irrelevant what former AG thought about Riza's case, or even what MACC or even what Senior DEPUTY public prosecutor's thinks. He may take all or any of their views/opinions and others into consideration - BUT the final decision is still with the new PP Idrus Harun's.
Now, with regard the IMDB/SRC and maybe other cases, the VICTIM is each and every Malaysian.
It is alleged about a quarter of the stolen funds ended up in Najib’s personal bank account, funding lavish credit card spending sprees by him and his wife, Rosmah Mansour. Even more extravagant was the spending by financier Jho Low, a friend of Najib’s stepson, Riza Aziz, who was an informal consultant on 1MDB. He allegedly siphoned billions from the fund, using it to buy vast amounts of prime Manhattan real estate, $8.1m worth of jewellery and a glass piano for Australian model Miranda Kerr, a Picasso painting and Oscar statuette for Leonardo Di Caprio, superyachts, and to throw ostentatious parties attended by the likes of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Foxx. He even bankrolled Hollywood movie The Wolf of Wall Street. “A number of corrupt 1MDB officials treated this public trust as a personal bank account,” Lynch said in 2016. International investigators now say at least $4.5bn was eventually stolen from 1MDB.- Guardian, 11/2/2019
US$4.5 Billion is 19.5485 billion Ringgit, that is MYR19,548 million - and since the Malaysian population is about 32 million, that means about RM610 for each and every Malaysian if divided equally.
If the agreement was for Riza Aziz to become prosecution witness - to help in the prosecution and conviction of the others including maybe Najib..., there could be some sense in that. After all, is it not interesting that not all Directors of 1MDB, SRC and the other related companies still not yet charged in court. After all, it is the Directors also that DECIDE what is done in and with 1MDB monies and assets?
It is common for an accused person to send a letter of representation seeking the Public Prosecutor to 're-consider' and maybe even withdraw the charges. Of course, all these letters must be considered...Acceptance of representation is a totally different matter -...it is a power of the Public Prosecutor.
READ the AG's statement dated 17/5/2020 below to get an official version of the terms of settlement ...
Now, things are happening over and beyond the terms of settlement as stated in the AG's media statement - like the monies found in the premises of Najib, Rosmah, etc ... Riza agreed to the forfeiture of monies recovered from Najib's and Rosmah's house....RM537,000, Sri Lanka rupee 2.87 million, and £2,700...but read on, it is also for other goods like 'watches,....
The only way that Riza can do that is because it belongs to Riza Aziz, so he can AGREE to give it to the government of Malaysia... So, it all does not belong to Najib and/or Rosmah?
Hence, would it not PREJUDICE the prosecution's own case against Najib and/or Rosmah... for after all, one may argue later, that the Consent Judgment between Riza and the Public Prosecutor is PROOF that it all belongs to Riza, not Najib ...not Rosmah, can't they not?
Now, from media reports, it looks like it involves more than money...it also involves other material...watches is mention in the media report... What is happening here?
BEST if the Public Prosecutor Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun be TRANSPARENT and explain it all to us Malaysians.... WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Of course, Najib's and Rosmah's lawyers will have NO OBJECTION especially if their position has always been that these 'seized properties' was not Najib's or Rosmah's. To object would be tantamount to admitting ownership - hence having to proof where the monies or the money to buy these items came from - from money wrongly obtained from 1MDB/SRC/etc?
Foolishness...or a 'carefully planned design' to undermine prosecution of Najib, Rosmah,...?
RIZA AZIZ, even though have obtained a DNAA(Discharge Not Amounting To Acquittal), which means that he can any time later be charged again for the exact same offence...MAY NOT be charged for the same offences, if the Prosecution offered to compound all the said offences. Once compounded, prosecution cannot charge him for the same offence.
There is mention about COMPOUND in the recent statement(below) of the Public Prosecutor - but not at all clear compound for what offence...
COMPOUND means just having to pay monies ...and the perpetrator escapes without having to spend any time in Jail...
YES, our objective is to RECOVER all monies 'stolen' from the Malaysian people - but our objective is also that JUSTICE is done > i.e. the perpetrator is punished for his crime as provided for in the law...remembering that any ONE charge previously against Riza Aziz ...'....to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years and 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 compound offered for just 5 offences, noting that the amount of compound to be paid by Riza is such amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine for that offence...Since, the total value of the sum or value of the proceeds of 'unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence' in his 5 charges was about US$1240 million, that means the maximum compound offered would be US$620 million(which is about MYR2.6 billion), so the question was what was the compound offer made by the State...MYR2.6 billion or was it a very much lower sum ....???
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLEASE...
*This, as is all my postings, are my own personal opinions ..
It is common for an accused person to send a letter of representation seeking the Public Prosecutor to 're-consider' and maybe even withdraw the charges. Of course, all these letters must be considered...Acceptance of representation is a totally different matter -...it is a power of the Public Prosecutor.
READ the AG's statement dated 17/5/2020 below to get an official version of the terms of settlement ...
Now, things are happening over and beyond the terms of settlement as stated in the AG's media statement - like the monies found in the premises of Najib, Rosmah, etc ... Riza agreed to the forfeiture of monies recovered from Najib's and Rosmah's house....RM537,000, Sri Lanka rupee 2.87 million, and £2,700...but read on, it is also for other goods like 'watches,....
The only way that Riza can do that is because it belongs to Riza Aziz, so he can AGREE to give it to the government of Malaysia... So, it all does not belong to Najib and/or Rosmah?
Now, this is now part of a CONSENT JUDGMENT recorded in Court, meaning it has already been agreed to by the Prosecution too.Datuk Seri Najib Razak's stepson Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz today agreed to forfeit RM537,000, Sri Lanka rupee 2.87 million, and £2,700 which had been seized by the government since May 2018 in relation to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB)....The order of consent was made by High Court's Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan who allowed the prosecution's application Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Faten Hadni Khairuddin and DPP Harris Ong Jeffrey Ong to forfeit the monies after they informed the court of Riza's agreement to forfeit them as a condition of his discharge not amounting to an acquittal of five money laundering charges in relation to 1MDB. Faten Hadni said the monies were seized from Najib and Rosmah's home in Jalan Langgak Duta....The DPP also wanted the court to record that there was no objection from Najib and Rosmah's lawyers over the seized monies. Najib's lawyer Nursyahirah Hanifiah and Rosmah's lawyer Azrul Zulkifli Stork concurred that they were not contesting the monies to be forfeited.
Hence, would it not PREJUDICE the prosecution's own case against Najib and/or Rosmah... for after all, one may argue later, that the Consent Judgment between Riza and the Public Prosecutor is PROOF that it all belongs to Riza, not Najib ...not Rosmah, can't they not?
Now, from media reports, it looks like it involves more than money...it also involves other material...watches is mention in the media report... What is happening here?
If it was a consent judgment between Najib and Rosmah and the Public Prosecutor...it is a different matter as it will be PROOF that the items seized belonged to Najib and/or Rosmah... but now, it looks like Riza Aziz is claiming to be the owner, and as such he has every right to enter into such CONSENT JUDGMENT with the Public Prosecutor.However, it is understood that Riza is contesting six of the 10 watches seized from Najib and Rosmah's home by the police, which are part of the RM31 million loot.
BEST if the Public Prosecutor Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun be TRANSPARENT and explain it all to us Malaysians.... WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Of course, Najib's and Rosmah's lawyers will have NO OBJECTION especially if their position has always been that these 'seized properties' was not Najib's or Rosmah's. To object would be tantamount to admitting ownership - hence having to proof where the monies or the money to buy these items came from - from money wrongly obtained from 1MDB/SRC/etc?
Foolishness...or a 'carefully planned design' to undermine prosecution of Najib, Rosmah,...?
RIZA AZIZ, even though have obtained a DNAA(Discharge Not Amounting To Acquittal), which means that he can any time later be charged again for the exact same offence...MAY NOT be charged for the same offences, if the Prosecution offered to compound all the said offences. Once compounded, prosecution cannot charge him for the same offence.
There is mention about COMPOUND in the recent statement(below) of the Public Prosecutor - but not at all clear compound for what offence...
COMPOUND means just having to pay monies ...and the perpetrator escapes without having to spend any time in Jail...
YES, our objective is to RECOVER all monies 'stolen' from the Malaysian people - but our objective is also that JUSTICE is done > i.e. the perpetrator is punished for his crime as provided for in the law...remembering that any ONE charge previously against Riza Aziz ...'....to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years and 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 compound offered for just 5 offences, noting that the amount of compound to be paid by Riza is such amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine for that offence...Since, the total value of the sum or value of the proceeds of 'unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence' in his 5 charges was about US$1240 million, that means the maximum compound offered would be US$620 million(which is about MYR2.6 billion), so the question was what was the compound offer made by the State...MYR2.6 billion or was it a very much lower sum ....???
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLEASE...
*This, as is all my postings, are my own personal opinions ..
Riza agrees to forfeit money of various denominations from Najib's house
KUALA
LUMPUR (May 19): Datuk Seri Najib Razak's stepson Riza Shahriz Abdul
Aziz today agreed to forfeit RM537,000, Sri Lanka rupee 2.87 million,
and £2,700 which had been seized by the government since May 2018 in
relation to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
The monies are part of the RM31 million sought by the prosecution and government from Riza along with Najib, his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and 15 others including from Low Taek Jho's mother.
Riza, a co-founder of Red Granite Pictures, is Rosmah's son from her previous marriage.
The order of consent was made by High Court's Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan who allowed the prosecution's application Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Faten Hadni Khairuddin and DPP Harris Ong Jeffrey Ong to forfeit the monies after they informed the court of Riza's agreement to forfeit them as a condition of his discharge not amounting to an acquittal of five money laundering charges in relation to 1MDB.
Faten Hadni said the monies were seized from Najib and Rosmah's home in Jalan Langgak Duta.
“Riza Aziz had agreed to forfeit several of the assets in the United States and also in Malaysia as part of a condition to drop the five charges where the Sessions Court recorded a discharge not amounting to an acquittal,” she said.
The DPP also wanted the court to record that there was no objection from Najib and Rosmah's lawyers over the seized monies.
Najib's lawyer Nursyahirah Hanifiah and Rosmah's lawyer Azrul Zulkifli Stork concurred that they were not contesting the monies to be forfeited.
With this, Justice Zaini recorded the forfeiture of the said monies from Riza.
However, it is understood that Riza is contesting six of the 10 watches seized from Najib and Rosmah's home by the police, which are part of the RM31 million loot.
It was reported last Thursday that Sessions Court Judge Azman Ahmad allowed the prosecution's request that Riza be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal of five money laundering charges that amounted to charges involving US$248 million (RM1.25 billion), allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB funds.
Lead prosecutor and former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram had said that the prosecution had considered Riza's representation which had been considered most carefully.
“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 millions of ringgit,” Sri Ram said then.
However, a furore occurred when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission claimed that the deal was agreed upon by former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, who has disputed this twice. - Edge Markets, 19/5/2020
The monies are part of the RM31 million sought by the prosecution and government from Riza along with Najib, his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and 15 others including from Low Taek Jho's mother.
Riza, a co-founder of Red Granite Pictures, is Rosmah's son from her previous marriage.
The order of consent was made by High Court's Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan who allowed the prosecution's application Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Faten Hadni Khairuddin and DPP Harris Ong Jeffrey Ong to forfeit the monies after they informed the court of Riza's agreement to forfeit them as a condition of his discharge not amounting to an acquittal of five money laundering charges in relation to 1MDB.
Faten Hadni said the monies were seized from Najib and Rosmah's home in Jalan Langgak Duta.
“Riza Aziz had agreed to forfeit several of the assets in the United States and also in Malaysia as part of a condition to drop the five charges where the Sessions Court recorded a discharge not amounting to an acquittal,” she said.
The DPP also wanted the court to record that there was no objection from Najib and Rosmah's lawyers over the seized monies.
Najib's lawyer Nursyahirah Hanifiah and Rosmah's lawyer Azrul Zulkifli Stork concurred that they were not contesting the monies to be forfeited.
With this, Justice Zaini recorded the forfeiture of the said monies from Riza.
However, it is understood that Riza is contesting six of the 10 watches seized from Najib and Rosmah's home by the police, which are part of the RM31 million loot.
It was reported last Thursday that Sessions Court Judge Azman Ahmad allowed the prosecution's request that Riza be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal of five money laundering charges that amounted to charges involving US$248 million (RM1.25 billion), allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB funds.
Lead prosecutor and former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram had said that the prosecution had considered Riza's representation which had been considered most carefully.
“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 millions of ringgit,” Sri Ram said then.
However, a furore occurred when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission claimed that the deal was agreed upon by former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, who has disputed this twice. - Edge Markets, 19/5/2020
MEDIA STATEMENT BY Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun, Attorney General / Public Prosecutor DATED 17 May 2020
JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA, MALAYSIA
(ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS, MALAYSIA)
NO.45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4
PUSAT PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN
62100 PUTRAJAYA
Tel. : 03 - 8872 2000
Faks : 03 - 8890 5609
Web : www.agc.gov.my
(ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS, MALAYSIA)
NO.45, PERSIARAN PERDANA, PRESINT 4
PUSAT PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN
62100 PUTRAJAYA
Tel. : 03 - 8872 2000
Faks : 03 - 8890 5609
Web : www.agc.gov.my
MEDIA RELEASE
PP v RIZA SHAHRIZ BIN ABDUL AZIZ
1. Riza Shahriz Bin Abdul Aziz (“Riza Aziz”) was charged with five (5) money laundering offences punishable under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Act 613) for receiving proceeds of an unlawful activity, totalling USD248,173,104.00 linked to 1MDB between April 2011 and November 2012.
2. Since the filing of the charges, Riza Aziz has made several representations to this Chambers through his Solicitors, Messrs Scivetti & Associates. I am made to understand that the chronology of correspondence between AGC/MACC and Riza Aziz’s Solicitors, before my appointment as Attorney General, is as follows:
a. On 18th November 2019, the Solicitors sent a letter of representation to this Chambers seeking for a review of all five (5) charges against Riza Aziz in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. The letter of representation, among others, proposed that Riza Aziz -
i. Surrender his rights in three (3) properties seized by the United States Department of Justice and for Riza Aziz to facilitate the return of the same or its value, to the Government of Malaysia. The properties in question are as follows:
a. One (1) unit of bungalow located in Beverly Hills, California;
b. One (1) unit of apartment located in New York, and
c. One (1) unit of townhouse in London, United Kingdom;
ii. Agreeable to have the monies seized from him which form the subject matter in a related matter before the Kuala Lumpur High Court, be forfeited to the Government of Malaysia; and
iii. Pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.
I have been advised that my predecessor Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, after perusing the said letter of representation, via a minute dated 19th November 2019 to Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor Dato’ Seri Gopal Sri Ram, sought the views of the latter, and further stated that in light of the proposals outlined above, he is prepared to consider the representation.
I have been further advised that Dato’ Seri Gopal Sri Ram, in consultation with the then Chief Commissioner of MACC, Puan Latheefa Koya, suggested that the proposals laid down in the letter of representation be accepted by MACC. I have also been advised that Tan Sri Thomas had agreed to the suggestion in principle. This paved the way for further negotiations and planning of the mechanism to be adopted, to take place.
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.
This was then presented to me after I had been made aware of Tan Sri Thomas’ earlier position. Having been briefed by the Deputy Public Prosecutors in charge of the matter, I shared the views of my predecessor as had been informed to me, and agreed to accept the offer that was made by Riza Aziz subject to his strict compliance with the terms and conditions.
c. On 16th April 2020, the MACC replied to the Solicitors essentially stating that the Public Prosecutor was willing to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on all five (5) charges subject to Riza Aziz taking steps to ensure that the monies and properties seized be transferred to the Government of Malaysia, and to pay a compound pursuant to section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.
d. On 21st April 2020, the MACC wrote to the Solicitors instructing Riza Aziz to relinquish his rights, title and interest in another asset identified as the “Metropolis Poster” being a one-framed, 3-sheet color lithograph poster created by the German artist Heinz Schulz-Neudamm for the 1927 silent film “Metropolis”.
e. On 13th May 2020, the MACC again wrote to the Solicitors instructing Riza Aziz to transfer USD14,087,072.76 held in an escrow account at Huntington National Bank, USA to the Government of Malaysia.
e. On 13th May 2020, the MACC again wrote to the Solicitors instructing Riza Aziz to transfer USD14,087,072.76 held in an escrow account at Huntington National Bank, USA to the Government of Malaysia.
3. With this arrangement, the Government of Malaysia is expected to recover approximately USD108 million (subject to the eventual sale proceeds of the assets and deduction of the associated costs thereof) to be credited into the 1MDB Asset Recovery Trust Account. This is in addition to the USD57,036,688.68 which was forfeited earlier in April 2019 from Red Granite Pictures, a company co-owned by Riza Aziz, the funds of which are traceable to 1MDB.
4. These arrangements are part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to recover assets related to 1MDB. I have been informed that negotiations with several parties in the past year, especially in relation to assets located overseas, had resulted in the successful recovery and repatriation of monies which will reduce the Government’s burden in repaying 1MDB’s debts. Such negotiations have been complex, requiring close cooperation with authorities abroad, and are continuing.
Tan Sri Idrus Bin Harun
Attorney General / Public Prosecutor
17 May 2020
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment