A lot of attention now following the 'agreement' between prosecution and the accused Riza Aziz, leading to a DNAA (Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal).
His charges in court were with regard to '...five counts of money laundering involving US$248
million of 1MDB funds...' - Now, according to the reported settlement, he pays back an equivalent of US$108 - but then what happens to the remaining US$130 million > Riza Aziz keeps it?
He said the letter of representation by Riza’s lawyers from Messrs Scivetti & Associates dated Nov 18, 2019 underlined that Riza will surrender his rights in three properties seized by the US Department of Justice and return the assets or its value to the Malaysian government. 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.
The three properties, the Metropolis poster and the escrow account cash sum up to an estimated US$108 million (excluding associated costs), which will be credited into the “1MDB Asset Recovery Trust Account”, said Idrus.
Well, charges in court would be really with regard to cases where sufficient evidence already obtained - meaning, there could be so much more other monies or monies worth that Riza may have obtained 'illegally', where he could be charged for later. There is a possibility of Riza Aziz be charged later for other offences involving 1MDB(or Malaysian peoples' monies)?
Was the additional profits made these 'IMDB funds' taken into account in the agreement with prosecution? If I stole RM100, and put into a fix deposit giving 3.5%, I will then have RM103.5 at the end of the year. If money stolen was used to buy a house, surely additional income would be generated as house prices escalate...???
Well, the agreement with Riza resulted in a DNAA(not an Acquittal) > that means that at a later date, he could be charged for the same offence again - as recovering 'stolen/dirty money' to be returned to the owners is really very different from being charged and punished for the offence, where if found guilty, one will be sentenced to jail or made to pay a fine(which does not go to the owners of the property stolen but to the State).
I believe it would have been better that Riza Aziz pleaded guilty, and he returned the monies taken, plus also made an agreement with prosecution to cooperate by being witness for prosecution in other cases against others perpetrators in crimes involving the 'theft'/kleptocracy of 1MDB and other Malaysian monies. Such actions by Riza would have been 'mitigating factors' that will result in maybe reduced prison sentence...
Anyway, just a DNAA was good - with the option for Malaysia to charge him for the same offence later on again BUT then it seems that he has been offered a 'COMPOUND' - well, if he accepts and pays the compound sum, he cannot later be charged for the offence compounded ...Public Prosecutor must explain more about this...
92 Power of competent authority to compound offences(ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001)(1) The competent authority or relevant enforcement agency, as the case maybe, may, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, compound any offence under this Act or under regulations made under this Act, by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of having committed the offence such amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine for that offence...
(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.
Riza was charged with the five counts of money laundering under
Section 4(1)(a) of the AMLA Act, and on conviction, he could have been liable for each of the 5 offences, '....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....'
Hence, if Riza Aziz was found guilty for all 5 charges - he could be imprisoned for a total of 75 years, and also be liable to pay a fine of at least US$1240 million.
However, if Riza pleaded guilty, it will be a mitigating factor, and his sentence could maybe be reduced by one third...
COMPOUND - was he compounded for all the same 5 offences, if so, then 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 Public Prosecutor must be transparent, and tell us what offence/s was he offered a compound - and how much did he pay - US$620 million?
Or did Rizal Aziz only admit to US$108, which he paid back > which means that the minimum compound sum he had to pay would be - US270 million.
Riza Aziz agreed to return US$108 which '...will be credited into the “1MDB Asset Recovery Trust Account” ' - what is interesting is that is not most of these properties have already been seized by the US - which means that the chances may be slim to nothing for Riza to get them back at all.
Besides the assets already seized, the only property still in Riza's control would monies in some escrow account. [Of course, the admission and agreement makes it easier for the monies to be returned to Malaysia - but it also can be seen as an 'admission of guilt'.]
Hence, what Riza and the Malaysian prosecution did by the 'agreement' was to keep Riza out of jail - but at the end of the day, he may still have to pay the compound of US$270 million.
So, tell us Mr Public Prosecutor, what exactly was the compound offered for - all 5 offences charged ...or something else? What was the amount of compound - US$270 million OR was it US$620 million?
Let's not be distracted by whether Tommy Thomas agreed to this or not - that is not that important ... Tell us about the COMPOUND - did it nullify the effect of the DNAAs, making it now impossible for Riza Aziz to be charged later for the same offence - hence keeping RIZA out of Jail and free.
(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.
COMPOUNDS can bring about great injustice as it may really favour the 'Rich' and keeps them out of jail.
Worse is that compounds are administrative actions - not under judicial control.
Certain crimes really should never be offered a compound - all perpetrators ought to be charged and tried in open court. There, in court, the perpetrator always have the opportunity to plead guilty - which may reduce sentences, but it will be courts that publicly and independently decide and impose sentence.
How may employers that breach occupational and safety laws, that some even resulted in DEATH and/or permanent serious injuries to workers, have similarly never even been charged and/or tried in court BUT simply 'quietly' got away with paying some meager compounds?
Should AMLA offenses be compoundable? Surely not - when the victims, like in this case are the Malaysian people - Prosecution and open trial is what we want...?
Riza Aziz case settlement: US$108m asset forfeiture is on top of Red Granite payout
KUALA
LUMPUR (May 17): The US$108 million assets owned by Riza Aziz allegedly
financed using 1MDB funds that the Malaysian government expects to
recover, is on top of the US$57 million obtained by the US authorities
from Red Granite Pictures, says Attorney General Tan Sri Idrus Harun.
The assets comprise properties in the US and the UK, as well as cash
and a 93-year-old poster from a 1927 silent movie, Idrus said in a
statement today.
He said the letter of representation by Riza’s lawyers from Messrs
Scivetti & Associates dated Nov 18, 2019 underlined that Riza will
surrender his rights in three properties seized by the US Department of
Justice and return the assets or its value to the Malaysian government.
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.
Riza was granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) at the
Sessions Court on five counts of money laundering involving US$248
million of 1MDB funds, following letters of representation by Riza’s
lawyers and an application by the prosecution for the DNAA.
Idrus, in his statement today, said that on top of the three assets —
a Beverly Hills bungalow, a New York apartment, and a town house in
London — the MACC had on April 21 this year also sought another asset
from Riza.
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 three properties, the Metropolis poster and the escrow account
cash sum up to an estimated US$108 million (excluding associated costs),
which will be credited into the “1MDB Asset Recovery Trust Account”,
said Idrus.
“This is in addition to the US$57.03 million 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,” he said.
Riza’s compound likely capped at RM12.5m
The forfeiture of Riza’s assets is part of a deal struck with the
prosecution in his US$248 million money-laundering trial at the Sessions
Court last week, under which he was granted a DNAA.
This follows letters of representation by Riza’s lawyers, leading to the DNAA application by the prosecution.
Under the deal, Riza is also required to pay a certain compound — which can now be estimated to be a maximum of RM12.5 million.
Idrus said that under the deal with the prosecution, Riza is required
to pay a compound pursuant to Section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering
and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLA Act) on top of the asset
forfeiture.
Under Section 92, the authorities may accept a compound not exceeding
50% of the maximum fine of the offences committed by Riza.
Riza was charged with the five counts of money laundering under
Section 4(1)(a) of the AMLA Act, each carrying a punishment of maximum
RM5 million fine or maximum five years’ jail.
The arrangements for asset forfeiture, said Idrus, is 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,” said
Idrus.
“Such negotiations have been complex, requiring close cooperation with authorities abroad, and are continuing,” he added. - Edge Markets, 17/5/2020
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment